Even though you make a slipperly slope argument, Kaos, it is still a good one. What is the standard to what is offensive and what isn't? I forget sometimes that the framers wanted us to have the inalienable, fundamental right to "not be offended." If in this particular case, the confederate flag causes a disruption in the "educational process." Couldn't we argue, as some of you have, that Alabama Crimson Tide shirts disrupt the learning process? Or the color green, or popped colors, or see through shirts, v-necks, sweaters, ankle skirts (cause you know you want to see more leg)?
The other argument made is, students should learn the great virtue or tolerance. We see a lot of this on college campuses under the great banner of Diversity. And confederate flags are "inherently racist and intolerable and evil and should be burnt etc." But see the problem with this argument? In order to be tolerable of others, you must not tolerate the confederate flag? Can you tolerate the intolerable? What if i just don't want to tolerate black panthers cause i inherently disagree with their message? Well, the diversity tolernace crowd would tell me "tough, learn to respect their opinion/culture/etc." The logic collapses on itself. How can I tolerate a group that doesn't tolerate my point of view?
Which is why this student's argument of "I have the 1st amendment right to say or wear or express what i want to" is correct. Unfortunately, he got some judges that don't know how to read the 1st amendment (which is a fundamental right, i.e. fundamental to the notions of liberty). Cause in our Society of freedoms and liberties, you can say or express whatever you want, no matter how racist or dumbass or genius it is. It doesn't matter, the 1st amendment protects the individual to say it.
anyway, just my opinion, sorry for the long quasi-legal analysis
12 Replies
4076 Views