Post by: garrettwc on August 22, 2006, 07:21:19 AM
Stuart Middle School teacher burns U.S. flags in class
Lesson causes uproar in Jefferson
By Chris Kenning
ckenning@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal
A Stuart Middle School teacher has been removed from the classroom after he burned two American flags in class during a lesson on freedom of speech, Jefferson County Public Schools officials said.
Dan Holden, who teaches seventh-grade social studies, burned small flags in two different classes Friday and asked students to write an opinion paper about it, district spokeswoman Lauren Roberts said.
A teacher in the school district since 1979, Holden has been temporarily reassigned to non-instructional duties pending a district investigation. The district also alerted city fire officials, who are conducting their own investigation.
"Certainly we're concerned about the safety aspect," Roberts said, along with "the judgment of using that type of demonstration in a class."
Pat Summers, whose daughter was in Holden's class, said he was among more than 20 parents upset about the incident at school yesterday. Holden apparently told the students to ask their parents what they thought about the lesson, he said.
"She said, 'Our teacher burned a flag.' I'm like, 'What?' " Summers said. "When I was (at the school) at 8 a.m., the lobby was filled with probably 25 or 30 parents" who were upset, he said.
Holden could not be reached yesterday for comment.
Roberts said the flag burning did not appear to be politically motivated, based on an interview with Holden.
Summers said no advance notice had been given to parents, nor were school administrators aware of Holden's plans, Roberts said.
Stuart sixth-grader Kelsey Adwell, 11, said students were abuzz about the incident yesterday.
"They just can't believe that a teacher would do that -- burn two American flags in front of the class," she said. "A teacher shouldn't do that, even though it was an example."
Kentucky has a statute last amended in 1992 making desecration of a national or state flag in a public place a misdemeanor, but the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that flag desecration is protected speech.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky said the federal ruling would trump the state statute.
Congress has tried unsuccessfully to prohibit flag burning with a constitutional amendment. The latest attempt failed in the Senate this year.
Beth Wilson, director of Kentucky's ACLU, said the district is allowed to decide what's instructionally appropriate.
But "if a school is masking their objections to flag burning under the guise of safety, it raises questions about freedom of speech and academic freedom," she said. She said her group would monitor the case but did not plan to get involved at this point.
Regardless, school board member Pat O'Leary said the flag burning was unnecessary and could have offended some students, including those in military families.
"A teacher doesn't do that," he said. "It's just disrespectful."
Rebecca Creech, a Stuart sixth-grader, said she also thought it was "wrong."
Ginny Adwell, Kelsey's mother and the school's PTA president, said some parents who called for Holden to be fired were "going a little bit overboard" and should remember that the teacher was trying to provoke thought.
Brent McKim, president of the Jefferson County Teachers Association, said Holden has "been teaching for many years, and has by all accounts a good teaching record. It was not a political statement and was meant to illustrate a controversial issue. To fire someone because of that would be inappropriate," he said. "It wasn't like he was taking one side or another."
McKim said he was gathering facts that would determine whether the district was justified in removing Holden from the classroom.
In 2001, a teacher in Sacramento, Calif., faced suspension for using a lighter to singe a corner of an American flag in class.
The teacher later was fired, but district officials cited numerous acts of poor judgment and disregard for superiors.
Reporter Chris Kenning can be reached at (502) 582-4697.
Link:
Middle School teacher burns two U.S. Flags
To listen to them talk on the local TV, the administration's main problem with this is the "safety issue" with having an open flame in class.
Post by: BozemanMT on August 22, 2006, 07:37:10 AM
biting the hand that feeds you and all that
I would have a lot more respect if he didn't like the US so much he wasn't taking all my tax money.
hypocrite
Post by: lupinus on August 22, 2006, 07:39:51 AM
You're an ahole not fit to be called an American or teach a monkey much less young people on their way to becoming adults.
Think he would have liked my paper? I somehow get the fealing he wouldn't have.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 22, 2006, 07:46:36 AM
Somehow I get the sense that the lesson could have been delivered in a more effective way.
Post by: tyme on August 22, 2006, 08:40:33 AM
Quote
In the old days civics was a required course. It told you what your rights and responsibilities were as an American citizen. That included how to treat the flag.
In the old days, I hope people had more important things to worry about than whether someone wants to burn his or her own property.It would be nice if people were worried about more important things today. It's a flag. Get over it. This flag burning doesn't mean the teacher hates the country. You're free to disrespect the teacher if you run into him on the street. Turning it into more than that means you're setting yourself up as guardian of the symbol of the flag, and no one has that right.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 22, 2006, 08:44:18 AM
Quote from: tyme
Quote
In the old days civics was a required course. It told you what your rights and responsibilities were as an American citizen. That included how to treat the flag.
In the old days, I hope people had more important things to worry about than whether someone wants to burn his or her own property.It would be nice if people were worried about more important things today. It's a flag. Get over it. This flag burning doesn't mean the teacher hates the country. You're free to disrespect the teacher if you run into him on the street. Turning it into more than that means you're setting yourself up as guardian of the symbol of the flag, and no one has that right.
I am not setting myself up as guardian of anything. that is the gov't's responsibility.
Post by: Guest on August 22, 2006, 08:46:28 AM
I'm as much against flag burning as anyone, but there should be limits on how we react, instead of acting like islamofascists and constantly blaming the actions of others for "making" us do things.
Post by: Phantom Warrior on August 22, 2006, 08:54:58 AM
Quote from: Chi Chi Guiterrez
Hey, we have at least one poster who has announced to the world that he will a) physically attack anyone he sees burning a flag and b) if they resist, shoot them with his CCW as there would be a "disparity of force" if they fight back.
I'm as much against flag burning as anyone, but there should be limits on how we react, instead of acting like islamofascists and constantly blaming the actions of others for "making" us do things.
I'm sorry. Who said that and where did they say it? I've reread the thread three times and no where can I a thread that is even close to that.
I'm as much against flag burning as anyone, but there should be limits on how we react, instead of acting like islamofascists and constantly blaming the actions of others for "making" us do things.
Post by: Guest on August 22, 2006, 08:58:59 AM
Post by: HankB on August 22, 2006, 09:48:21 AM
The teacher was on record as supporting it as a matter of free speech.
So the kid basically took the position that cross-burning was a matter of free speech, too.
The teacher was black.
Needless to say, rather than being allowed to continue his presentation uninterrupted, the teacher kept butting in . . . having anticipated all the teacher's arguments, the kid had a ready answer to every point he raised.
EVERY point.
Nonetheless, the kid got an "A" on the report, and the teacher was about half-convinced to rethink his position . . . or at least, he conceded that perhaps opposition to flag buring was a valid viewpoint.
Post by: Sindawe on August 22, 2006, 10:14:29 AM
Quote
Hey, we have at least one poster who has announced to the world that he will a) physically attack anyone he sees burning a flag and b) if they resist, shoot them with his CCW as there would be a "disparity of force" if they fight back.
I know whom you're talking about, but don't recall their handle off hand.For me the intent of the burning is what makes the act offensive or not. Disposal of a worn flag or as an example of free speech in a teaching environment, I've no issue with that. When the U.S. flag is spat apon, trodden into the dirt and burned as a sign of disrespect to our culture and civilization while within our territorial borders, THEN you have a big problem.
Post by: 280plus on August 22, 2006, 10:49:41 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 22, 2006, 11:11:29 AM
Quote
Hey, we have at least one poster who has announced to the world that he will a) physically attack anyone he sees burning a flag and b) if they resist, shoot them with his CCW as there would be a "disparity of force" if they fight back.
Yeah, I remember that argument and all the talk of provocation and violence. Quote from: Sindawe
For me the intent of the burning is what makes the act offensive or not. Disposal of a worn flag or as an example of free speech in a teaching environment, I've no issue with that.
"As an example of free speech"? What are you talking about? Burning a flag just because you can, and burning it in protest of government policy are equally reprehensible. Burning the American flag in protest means only one thing - that one hates America. If you don't hate the country, don't burn our flag. Just so you know, I do not support laws that specifically outlaw burning crosses or flags.
Post by: Guest on August 22, 2006, 01:11:55 PM
I think I may hang one upside down as a sign of distress sometime, though. Perhaps if Hillary is elected.
Post by: Guest on August 22, 2006, 01:53:43 PM
Quote
In the old days civics was a required course. It told you what your rights and responsibilities were as an American citizen. That included how to treat the flag.
In the old days teachers were encouraged to depart from standardized lesson plans and take efforts to challenge the preconcieved notions of their students. its all part of teaching a person to think for themselves. Let the kids decide if they are outraged by this action or not. When the schoolboard and the parents start deciding this it takes the burdon from the students. I would have been a hell of a lot more impressed if the students got together to protest (or endorse) this action. If we are trying to teach kids how to be citizens then the first lesson should be one that involves the need to make a decision based on their own moral compass.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 22, 2006, 02:00:16 PM
Quote from: Chi Chi Gutierrez
I do not think I would burn a flag except in the most extreme perversion of my country by a dictatorship.
WHAT? That is not a reason to burn a flag. What would make you think it was? Burning a flag indicates that one hates the country thereof. It is not a protest of a particular government, politician, policy or practice. Disclaimer: I do not support laws that specifically outlaw burning crosses or flags.
Post by: lupinus on August 22, 2006, 06:32:37 PM
Disposing of it by fire to me is a lot more dignafied then throwing it in the trash.
I don't support laws agianst it, but then I don't support laws agianst a lot of things I don't like.
Post by: brimic on August 22, 2006, 07:04:43 PM
Post by: doczinn on August 22, 2006, 07:05:56 PM
Of course, these were flags that were no longer serviceable and were being disposed of in the preferred manner. (See Flag Code Section 4 Paragraph k.)
Post by: wingnutx on August 22, 2006, 08:58:54 PM
Quote from: lupinus
I don't support laws agianst it, but then I don't support laws agianst a lot of things I don't like.
same here. that said, what a jackass this 'teacher' is.
Post by: tyme on August 22, 2006, 11:14:59 PM
Given that this country is turning into a real nightmare, maybe it is fragile enough that flag burning should not be tolerated. After all, there's not very much worth defending in this country anymore, so let's turn the flag into a fetish and a symbol of what once was, and protect it at all cost!
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 23, 2006, 11:18:31 AM
Quote from: doczinn
What a coincidence. I myself burned two flags today.
Of course, these were flags that were no longer serviceable and were being disposed of in the preferred manner. (See Flag Code Section 4 Paragraph k.)
Why do people always feel the need to point out that burning is the "preferred manner" in which to retire a worn flag? What does that have to do with burning flags as a protest? Or do these people just think they're clever?
Of course, these were flags that were no longer serviceable and were being disposed of in the preferred manner. (See Flag Code Section 4 Paragraph k.)
Post by: client32 on August 23, 2006, 11:50:37 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: doczinn
What a coincidence. I myself burned two flags today.
Of course, these were flags that were no longer serviceable and were being disposed of in the preferred manner. (See Flag Code Section 4 Paragraph k.)
Why do people always feel the need to point out that burning is the "preferred manner" in which to retire a worn flag? What does that have to do with burning flags as a protest? Or do these people just think they're clever?Of course, these were flags that were no longer serviceable and were being disposed of in the preferred manner. (See Flag Code Section 4 Paragraph k.)
I would hope that the majority here is taking the discussion of this particular flag burning in context. There do seem to be a few that lump all flag burning in one category or another. Some think we must discuss this beyond the context discussed in the article.
I don't know how I feel about this teacher burning a flag to try and provoke some thoughts into the students. I don't know if this is the only way he was going to be able to get these kids engaged in class. I would hope and think that something else would have worked.
Maybe, if nothing else, when these kids see a flag being burned on the news it will actually catch their attention. I know I saw it on tv from time to time and didn't realy register any thought except that I didn't figure it was actually happening. When I was a young one, there was a lot of stuff on the news I thought was fictional just because I could not comprehend why anyone would act that way. Maybe this event will spur some kid to do something great. I still hope there is another way to get their attention though.
If it were my kid, I probably wouldn't show up at school about it the next day either. I would discuss it with my kid. If he/she took issue with what he did, then the kid can lead the charge and I would step in if/when needed. That is how my parents worked for the most part. I thought it was better than little Suzy's parents running to the school every other week over something stupid.
Sorry for the incoherent rambling.
Post by: doczinn on August 23, 2006, 03:08:48 PM
Quote
Or do these people just think they're clever?
Actually, I know damn well I'm clever, but that has nothing to do with posting that. It was a snide remark. I make a lot of those.Quote
I assume they think that the rest of us don't know this and we must be educated at every chance.
Well, there are a lot of people who don't know it. The guy who saw me light them, for example.
Post by: brimic on August 23, 2006, 04:21:44 PM
Quote
Given that this country is turning into a real nightmare,
Then why not move to a less nightmarish country. BTW, good luck with that.
Post by: garrettwc on August 24, 2006, 06:08:59 AM
News of flag burning circles the globe
Every body from our local congress critters to Al Jazeera have weighed in on this thing.
Post by: ONE-SHOT-ONE on August 24, 2006, 11:11:00 AM
:rolleyes
Post by: Guest on August 24, 2006, 02:04:23 PM
Quote from: Sindawe
If you don't hate the country, don't burn our flag. Just so you know, I do not support laws that specifically outlaw burning crosses or flags.
I actually think what the instructor did was pretty neat. He certainly did spark that discussion he sought. I like the idea that I live in a country that so treasures freedom of expression that one may even burn the flag.However, freedom of expression is no promise of safety from the legal recourse of those whom your actions offend. I'm all for the community being able to call for him being tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail.
Like everyone else Im outraged that some people dare and try to frame this as a fire safety issue. Thats just such a weasily cop out to taking a side, or even understanding the various sides, of an issue.
I strongly disagree with flag burning, but I think its one of those disagree with what they say but defend to the death sort of things... and secretly hope they accidentally light themselves on fire (that was an awesome protest picture).
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 24, 2006, 05:06:28 PM
Quote from: Ned Hamford
Quote from: Sindawe
If you don't hate the country, don't burn our flag. Just so you know, I do not support laws that specifically outlaw burning crosses or flags.
Quote
I actually think what the instructor did was pretty neat. He certainly did spark that discussion he sought.
I strongly disagree with flag burning,
This is looping insane! If you strongly disagree with it, why do you think it was so neat? How on earth is it OK to burn a flag just to make a point about free speech? Are you people nuts?
I strongly disagree with flag burning,
Post by: Guest on August 24, 2006, 05:30:29 PM
Quote from: fistful
This is looping insane! If you strongly disagree with it, why do you think it was so neat? How on earth is it OK to burn a flag just to make a point about free speech? Are you people nuts?
I think that some of "us people" are capabable of recognizing that the protection of free spech applies (especially) to unpopular speech. If a person says nothing but what is popular then they dont need protection.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 25, 2006, 04:57:45 AM
There is no charge for receiving my insurmountable wisdom.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 25, 2006, 07:57:28 AM
They have the meaning we imbue them with - just like words.
THere's different ways in which you could fly or burn a flag.
For example:
What if I make a film about terrorism and in the film, one of the actors burns a flag? That's surely okay.
What if I burn a flag while trying to make the point America is an evil, oppressive nation? Then I'm a moron.
If I burn a flag to make a point about free speech? Isn't this what the flag is supposed to stand for?
Yes, Free Speech covers all of those things.
But you can have free speech and still be a moron.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 25, 2006, 08:38:15 AM
Quote from: MicroBalrog
Flags are pieces of cloth. They have the meaning we imbue them with - just like words.
True enough. A national flag is a symbol of that nation, and often of love for or pride in that nation. Hence to burn (destroy) a flag symbolizes a desire to destroy that nation or at the very least to denigrate and disrespect it.*Quote
What if I make a film about terrorism and in the film, one of the actors burns a flag? That's surely okay.
What if I burn a flag while trying to make the point America is an evil, oppressive nation? Then I'm a moron.
If I burn a flag to make a point about free speech? Isn't this what the flag is supposed to stand for?
Yes, Free Speech covers all of those things. But you can have free speech and still be a moron.
This last is quite true. What if I burn a flag while trying to make the point America is an evil, oppressive nation? Then I'm a moron.
If I burn a flag to make a point about free speech? Isn't this what the flag is supposed to stand for?
Yes, Free Speech covers all of those things. But you can have free speech and still be a moron.
In the first case, I agree.
In the second, you may not be a moron, but you would be confused. At least you would not be burning the flag while claiming it is patriotic to do so.
In the third case, yes, you would be burning the very symbol of that in which you believe.
*Unless of course one burns it honorably at its retirement. Duh.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 25, 2006, 10:16:50 AM
to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic
for which it stands
One nation, under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The flag - I argue - stands not jsut America - the nation, it's people, etc - but also for it's current form of government, the Constitutional Federal Democratic Republic (which is, that is, guided by the law set down in the constitution, subdivided into sovereign states, governed by the people and for the people, and republican in nature rather then monarchist or theocratic or whatever), and some people would argue, also the current government that holds power in America.
Now, it could be a flag-burner hates America, the nation. Or he could be opposed to some of the aspects of the Republic (which is a legitimate political opinion) or even just to the current government.
Post by: BrokenPaw on August 25, 2006, 11:37:53 AM
Quote from: "fistful"
Deliberately mistreating the flag indicates hatred of the nation.
This is not precisely true. This is a situation where intent figures highly into the equation, and therefore moves the whole debate into the region of "thought crime", where there be dragons.Examples:
1) Person burns flag in protest of America or its policies. Material effect: A flag is destroyed.
2) Person burns flag respectfully because it is worn out. Material effect: A flag is destroyed.
3) Person rips flag to pieces in protest of America or its policies. Material effect: A flag is destroyed.
4) Person rips flag to make a tourniquet in order to save a life. Material effect: A flag is destroyed.
In all of these cases, a flag is destroyed. In cases 1 and 3, it is done with intent to express objection to the country that flag represents. In cases 2 and 4, it is done with no such intent.
(Note, I realize that 4 borders on a strawman, but it's there to demonstrate that it's possible to destroy a flag for a reason that does not include contempt for the United States).
If a flag is an object, it is in the realm of property, and may be treated as the owner wishes. If it is a symbol, it is subject to belief and thought. Those who are opposed to flag-desecration are not upset because the bit of cloth itself is being destroyed; they're opposed to the implicit statement of contempt it expresses. And an expression of thought through action that does not harm the person or property of another must be protected as "speech" just as the spoken word is. Why? Because if we limit "speech" to spoken (or even spoken and written) words, then we (for example) exclude sign language from the protections of the First Amendment.
How is signing the words "I hate America" any different in substance from burning a flag to make that same statement?
How can an act be legal on some occasions (burning a flag respectfully) and illegal on other occasions (burning one in protest) with such times being distinguished solely by what the person committing the act was thinking?
All of that said, it angers me when people descrate the flag in protest or disrespect. But it's not the act of burning the flag that angers me; it's the statement that the person is making by doing so, and I'd be just as angry if they wrote, spoke, or used sign language to express the same sentiment.
Namaste,
-BP
Post by: Guest on August 25, 2006, 12:12:05 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on August 25, 2006, 12:36:16 PM
Quote from: Ned Hamford
BrokenPaw, I think you nailed it.
I think he missed it.It was the most one dimensional argument I have seen.
In the case of the flag protester, he does not burn it in the privacy of his backyard. He burns it as publicly as he can. The net effect is to rile up those who see it, both for and against, as we have seen as this board. Violence could and has ensued, and for good reason. The flag is not some shmatta on a stick. It is, as pointed, a symbol of America, its history, its people, and its way of life. People have given their lives for those things, which the flag symbolizes.
Symbols are important. People got upset (rightly so) when one person took two stick and put them in a cup of urine. You could argue it was his property and so forth, but the intent was to upset people.
The person burning the worn out flag may do so in the privacy of his backyard. He does so out of reverence for what the flag symbolizes. Those seeing it will not miss the message.
So back to the teacher: was that really the most effective demonstration he could have given? For the protester, is that the most effective way to deliver his message? The answer is no, of course. It is a thuggish medium used by people who cannot articulate. This is why third world protesters use it, because the picture is universal and they cannot communicate in English.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 25, 2006, 01:52:35 PM
He missed it completely. I made clear that I was speaking of flag-burning as protest, and I never spoke of outlawing the same. I have stated clearly and simply in this thread, more than once, that I do not support a ban on flag-burning.
I do not support laws that specifically outlaw burning crosses or flags.
What I am arguing against is the inexplicable notion that one can burn a flag as simply a demonstration of free speech, without also making an anti-American sentiment. Or the idea that one can burn the flag, as protest, and expect it to convey any other message than hatred of, opposition to, or disrespect for the nation as a whole. Burning a flag is not a way to demonstrate against particular policies or politicians.
I do not support laws that specifically outlaw burning crosses or flags. Does everyone understand that?
Post by: BrokenPaw on August 25, 2006, 02:10:56 PM
Quote from: "The Rabbi"
In the case of the flag protester, he does not burn it in the privacy of his backyard. He burns it as publicly as he can. The net effect is to rile up those who see it, both for and against, as we have seen as this board.
You're right, of course, Rabbi, and I apologize. I forgot that "riling people up" was an acceptable reason to ban something.And yes, Fistful, I understand that you do not support laws that specifically outlaw burning crosses or flags. You stated that intentionally destroying a flag[0] intrinsically meant: "Deliberately mistreating the flag indicates hatred of the nation." That's what I was responding to, by pointing out that this was not the case, and that to attempt to determine the reasons why someone would burn a flag bordered on legislating thought. I wasn't talking to you in that regard, but to the people who think that it should be banned. In this case, my apology for the misunderstanding is sincere: I didn't mean to imply that you were in favor of legislation banning flag-burning.
-Namaste,
-BP
- Except under the inevitably-pointed-out case of respectful destruction
Post by: The Rabbi on August 25, 2006, 02:21:07 PM
Quote from: BrokenPaw
Quote from: "The Rabbi"
In the case of the flag protester, he does not burn it in the privacy of his backyard. He burns it as publicly as he can. The net effect is to rile up those who see it, both for and against, as we have seen as this board.
You're right, of course, Rabbi, and I apologize. I forgot that "riling people up" was an acceptable reason to ban something.And yes, Fistful, I understand that you do not support laws that specifically outlaw burning crosses or flags. You stated that intentionally destroying a flag[0] intrinsically meant: "Deliberately mistreating the flag indicates hatred of the nation." That's what I was responding to, by pointing out that this was not the case, and that to attempt to determine the reasons why someone would burn a flag bordered on legislating thought. I wasn't talking to you in that regard, but to the people who think that it should be banned. In this case, my apology for the misunderstanding is sincere: I didn't mean to imply that you were in favor of legislation banning flag-burning.
I also know from your grad school work in philosophy that "legislating thought" is not the same as legislating action. Governments certainly have not just the power but the responsibility to legislate action, either positive or negative.
Also your advanced work in American history has no doubt revealed that there has been legislation on flag etiquette for quite some time. During most of that time no one's freedom of expression was stifled because he couldn't burn an American flag. You are also well aware that political discourse was generally on a higher level and people enjoyed more freedom in those years, not less.
Post by: Guest on August 25, 2006, 02:44:49 PM
Quote
Deliberately mistreating the flag indicates hatred of the nation. It cannot be done lightly as some sort of object lesson.
That might well be the most clear interpretation, but it isnt the only one. For example, if someone were to burn a flag specifically in protest of a constitutional ammendment against flag burning, then hatred of the entire country is not part of the message. In fact, since our country currently allows the burning of flags such a protest would be one that seeks to preserve the laws of the land as they stand, rather than trying to change the nation.
Post by: Guest on August 25, 2006, 05:20:22 PM
Putting it in light of incitement to riot... yarg.
With that reframing I think I'll have to withdraw my previous statements.
Also in that light, what an ass for doing such an offensive things in front of children. Imagining if I was a parent I would be livid. Focusing on the social aspect rather than the govermental (the outcry about fire safety) has altered both emotion and conclusion.
Sorry for being the dim bulb earlier
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 26, 2006, 04:30:05 PM
Post by: BrokenPaw on August 28, 2006, 05:43:13 AM
Quote
I accept your heartfelt apology. I know you've researched it and discovered that "fighting words" are not protected speech and burning a flag under some circumstances is certainly that. Inciting to riot might be another reason.
Gosh. And what is the threshold for what constitutes a "fighting word", as opposed to a word which, while challenging to people's temperament, is not truly pugilistic?Incitement to riot? No. Incitement to riot is the intentional encouragement of a mob to do what a mob is already inclined to do. Expressing a thought that people find distasteful, whether through spoken words, written words, symbols, or non-violent action, is merely that: expressing a thought. If a collection of people who witness an expression of thought are so lacking in basic discipline as to be utterly unable to bear the thought of not rioting, then they're not mature enough to be out on the streets without their mommies.
Quote
I also know from your grad school work in philosophy that "legislating thought" is not the same as legislating action. Governments certainly have not just the power but the responsibility to legislate action, either positive or negative.
I like the subtle ad hominem suggestion that my education (or, as you cleverly imply, lack of it) somehow affects the validity of my argument. That was very well-played. However, since you (by your own implication, else it would have been hypocritical for you to denigrate my own background) speak from the high ground of graduate-level philosophical education, perhaps you can enlighten those of us given to mere pedestrian thought:How are speech (a physical action that expresses meaning via auditory medium), writing (a physical action that expresses meaning via visual medium) and sign language (a physical action that expresses meaning via visual medium) protected as sacrosanct, while flag-burning, (a physical action that expresses meaning via visual medium) is not protected?
Perhaps, since this issue is beyond my limited ability to grasp, you will limit your explanation to the last two examples (sign language and flag-burning), since they are both examples of actions that express a thought.
Oh, and in case you missed it, I was not suggesting that there are laws that prohibit particular thoughts. I was talking about the fact that legislation exists that regulates action based solely upon what the perpetrator was thinking. If an action is illegal under any and all circumstances, freedom of thought is preserved; the action itself is the prohibited thing. But when an action is legal under some circumstances, and illegal under others, and the only thing that divides one set of circumstances from the other is what the perpetrator was thinking...well, then. It's not the action that's being regulated...it's the thought behind the action. But one of august thought will have already grasped that basic semantic distinction.
Quote
Also your advanced work in American history has no doubt revealed that there has been legislation on flag etiquette for quite some time. During most of that time no one's freedom of expression was stifled because he couldn't burn an American flag. You are also well aware that political discourse was generally on a higher level and people enjoyed more freedom in those years, not less.
Again with the ad hominem. Impressive. I'll give you another bit of gratuitous Latin: ad nauseam. Feel free to stop impugning my level of education at any time, until such time as you actually have some knowledge of it.Yes, there has been legislation on flag etiquette for some time. There has been legislation on many subjects for many years. Are you going to now fall back on the tired "it's against the law, it must be bad" canard? I can think of plenty of malum prohibitum activities we could also discuss.
No one's freedom is curtailed when they intrinsically have no desire or ability to do the thing that is prohibited. Few people would get bent out of shape if there were a law against levitation, because few people have the desire to try, and fewer still have the ability to accomplish it. And yet, were someone to actually do it, would it be wrong for them to have done so? Just because it was prohibited? Just because the fact that they had flew in the face of everything that the people watching believed about physics?
For the remainder of this debate, Rabbi, I would appreciate it if you would limit your discourse to the subject at hand, and not cover the weakness of your position by casting aspersions at me and my education, however carefully you cloak them in sarcasm.
If you can't argue the topic on its merits alone, take your toys and go home.
-BrokenPaw
Post by: The Rabbi on August 28, 2006, 07:14:08 AM
Post by: BrokenPaw on August 28, 2006, 07:21:00 AM
-BP
Post by: garrettwc on October 17, 2006, 05:50:05 AM
After spending a few months in "administrative duties" waiting for the controversy to die down. The teacher was given a 5 day unpaid suspension, and allowed to quietly return to the classroom yesterday.
Flag burning teacher back in class
Flag-burning teacher back in class
Officials gave man 5-day suspension
By Chris Kenning
ckenning@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal
A Stuart Middle School teacher is back in the classroom after receiving a five-day unpaid suspension for burning two U.S. flags as part of a lesson on free speech.
Teacher Dan Holden's Aug. 18 demonstration "created an unsafe environment" and violated district safety rules, according to investigation findings released yesterday by Jefferson County Public Schools.
Neither the report nor a disciplinary letter on the suspension that ended Oct. 4 discusses whether the lesson was appropriate for middle school children.
"It's not the kind of demonstration we would hope that a teacher would choose. & We're not questioning his constitutional rights," said Carolyn Meredith, director of employee relations. "But we do have real concerns about students' safety."
Holden -- who told administrators he was trying to engage students, not make a political statement -- could not be reached for comment yesterday and has not talked publicly since he was removed from the classroom.
Holden burned two 18-inch flags over a trash can during separate classes, one with 30 students and another with 24 students. He told investigators he had a fire extinguisher and wet towels nearby.
Last month, prosecutors decided that Holden's actions did not rise to the level of criminal endangerment charges.
Patrick Bissig, whose daughter was in one of the classes, said he thinks the district's discipline was adequate. He said students and parents seem content with Holden's return to class. "The issue was dealt with, and the message was sent & there are better ways to get your point across," he said.
Ginny Adwell, the school's PTA president, said she also backs the district's decision and said furor over the issue has largely died down.
Brent McKim, president of the Jefferson County Teachers Association, said he wasn't familiar with the details of the findings but was glad officials didn't attempt to fire Holden.
Holden told investigators he was trying to provoke students to think about free speech, discuss it with their parents and pen an editorial for their writing portfolios.
But the incident outraged some parents and others, making headlines from CNN to The Drudge Report. The district was deluged with calls and e-mail messages.
Holden was placed on noninstructional duties before his suspension. In a disciplinary letter from the district, Stuart principal Jennifer Colley said that future violations could result in more severe discipline or termination.
Kentucky has a statute last amended in 1992 making desecration of a national or state flag in a public place a misdemeanor, but the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that flag desecration is protected speech.
Congress has tried unsuccessfully to prohibit flag burning with a constitutional amendment. The latest attempt failed this year.
Post by: roo_ster on October 17, 2006, 07:56:25 AM
Which is why, I guess, he is in the public school system.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 17, 2006, 08:48:15 AM
It seems to me quite amusing that there are so many native-born that "hate America" for whatever rubbed them the wrong way, while there are billions out there desperately wishing to come to us and live in "this very bad America". Methinks the America-haters should take a spin or two around the globe, but at a leisurely pace, and explore something beyond the tourist enclaves in each social gutter.
As to freedom of speech, try saying something nonPC at work and see how that works out. There are double-plus regulations about good-speak, and any infringement can get you fired faster than you can blurt out your favorite slur.
Post by: Dave on October 18, 2006, 06:05:46 AM
Quote
It was not a political statement and was meant to illustrate a controversial issue.
Apparently it worked, and probably "illustrated" the issue better than he expected.