[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: School Principal Calls FBI After 8th Grader Throws ‘Made In China’ Flag Out Of Window
Source: Infowars
URL Source: http://www.infowars.com/school-prin ... e-in-china-flag-out-of-window/
Published: Feb 11, 2015
Author: Steve Watson
Post Date: 2015-02-13 11:07:16 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1241
Comments: 15

A school principal in New Mexico is attempting to contact the government and have federal charges brought against a 14-year-old student who threw a small American flag on a stick out of a window.

Robert Archuleta wants the boy expelled, and presumably arrested, following the incident during which four students were misbehaving, also throwing other items such as workbooks out of the classroom window into snow.

The principal initially called the school police officer with Rio Arriba County, but because he told them he wished to report a federal offense, the cops referred him to the FBI.

“A lot of men have died over [the flag], men and women,” Archuleta told reporters with KRQE. A veteran from a military family, Archuleta added, “We fought to keep our country safe and to keep it free.”

Critics have noted that Archuleta doesn’t seem to understand that he and others actually fought for the right to throw the flag out of a window, not for the flag itself.

Desecration of the flag has not been a punishable offense for close to a half century. Any action taken involving an American flag, no matter whether Archuleta agrees with it or not, is protected under the First Amendment.

Several Supreme Court rulings have reaffirmed that “contempt” of the flag, such as burning it, is a form of free speech, and is thus protected.

However, Archuleta, who clearly wants to make an example out of the student, claims that there is a federal law that somehow trumps the Constitution.

“I want to report it to them because it is a federal law, so it’s in their hands,” Archuleta said, adding “I am a firm believer in citizenship and U.S. history and our history, and these are going to be our future leaders. I want them to understand they have to take responsibility.”

The student has been suspended for ten days, but Archuleta says he will lobby for expulsion at a district hearing.

The FBI told KRQE News 13 that no official complaint has yet been logged, but if a federal crime was committed they will investigate and report back to the U.S. Attorney’s office.

—————————————————————-

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

"Several Supreme Court rulings have reaffirmed that “contempt” of the flag, such as burning it, is a form of free speech, and is thus protected."

Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).

"The word "offensive" is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . ."

I would say that "contempt of the flag" qualifies. But that's me.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-02-13   11:22:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Deckard (#0)

School Principal Calls FBI After 8th Grader Throws ‘Made In China’ Flag Out Of Window

Another genious all wound up in his authority in charge of our educational system.

rlk  posted on  2015-02-13   11:35:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: rlk (#2)

The FBI for THIS incident?? Ya think it was slight overkill?

Archuleta said, adding “I am a firm believer in citizenship and U.S. history and our history, and these are going to be our future leaders."

What Archuleta is NOT is a "firm believer" in the US Constitution and common sense.

If the incident created a disturbance in class, THAT is another story, but certainly not a federal case.

Liberator  posted on  2015-02-13   12:39:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: misterwhite (#1)

"The word "offensive" is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . ."

I would say that "contempt of the flag" qualifies. But that's me.

Hmm, so, if I understand you correctly, you are equating 'fighting words', to an adult, who didnt like the actions of a 14 year old?

Did the adult kick the 14 year olds ass? No? Maybe you should research what fighting words is in relation to, or, is this just another apple and orange debate tactic by you, to protect government drones who are out of control?

Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-02-13   12:52:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Dead Culture Watch (#4)

"Hmm, so, if I understand you correctly, you are equating 'fighting words', to an adult, who didnt like the actions of a 14 year old?"

I'm saying the first amendment doesn't protect "fighting words" and that, to me, contempt of the American flag constitutes fighting words.

Meaning, the actions of that idiotic 14-year-old asswipe are not protected.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-02-13   14:56:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Deckard (#0)

Deliberately deceptive article.

Biff Tannen  posted on  2015-02-13   15:59:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Deckard (#0)

The student has been suspended for ten days, but Archuleta says he will lobby for expulsion at a district hearing.

The kid must be a little hellion. Like BorisY on steroids.

Fred Mertz  posted on  2015-02-13   16:04:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: misterwhite, Deckard, rlk, Dead Culture Watch, Nolu Chan (#1)

I would say that "contempt of the flag" qualifies. But that's me.

Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).

1942 -- wasn't that just after Pearl Harbor was bombed, and the US was thrust into WWII? So "fighting words" is a matter of context. If it weren't so, every talking head on MSNBC, or especially the Mud Hut Resident are undoubtedly MORE guilty under Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568. Isn't enforcement of this statute relative to the winds of political "speed traps"?

Tossing out that American flag was definitely provocative and could legitimately be considered disruptive and defiant and disrespectful of school authority (the teacher in this case)...

I don't like it either. But calling in the FBI? The punk ought to have just been suspended, but only for disturbing the class and trying to undermine the respect for the teacher.

Liberator  posted on  2015-02-13   16:58:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Deckard (#0)

Robert Archuleta wants the boy expelled, and presumably arrested, following the incident during which four students were misbehaving, also throwing other items such as workbooks out of the classroom window into snow.

There is no crime regarding what one does with a flag as a form of expression.

If the flag or workbooks were not their personal property, or the act was possibly dangerous to passersby below, that could be actionable.

https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30243.pdf

Congressional Research Service Report for Congress

The United States Flag: Federal Law Relating to Display and Associated Questions

Updated April 14, 2008

John R. Luckey
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division

Order Code RL30243

Excerpt from introductory summary, unnumbered page

This report presents, verbatim, the United States “Flag Code” as found in Title 4 of the United States Code and the section of Title 36 which designates the Star- Spangled Banner as the national anthem and provides instructions on how to display the flag during its rendition. The “Flag Code” includes instruction and rules on such topics as the pledge of allegiance, display and use of the flag by civilians, time and occasions for display, position and manner of display, and how to show respect for the flag. The “Code” also grants to the President the authority to modify the rules governing the flag.

Excerpt at 1: [footnotes omitted, emphasis added]

On the national level the Federal Flag Code provides uniform guidelines for the display of and respect shown to the flag. In addition to the Code, Congress has by statute designated the national anthem and set out the proper conduct during its presentation. The Code is designed “for the use of such civilian groups or organizations as may not be required to conform with regulations promulgated by one or more executive departments” of the federal government. Thus, the Flag Code does not prescribe any penalties for non-compliance nor does it include enforcement provisions; rather the Code functions simply as a guide to be voluntarily followed by civilians and civilian groups.

Excerpt at 2: [footnotes omitted, emphasis added]

In addition to the Flag Code, a separate provision contained in the Federal Criminal Code established criminal penalties for certain treatment of the flag. Prior to 1989, this provision provided criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag. In response to the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson (which held that anti-desecration statutes are unconstitutional if aimed at suppressing one type of expression), Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act of 1989 to provide criminal penalties for certain acts which violate the physical integrity of the flag. This law imposed a fine and/or up to one year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor, or trampling upon any flag of the United States. In 1990, however, the Supreme Court held that the Flag Protection Act was unconstitutional as applied to a burning of the flag in a public protest.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-02-13   17:17:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: misterwhite (#5)

I'm saying the first amendment doesn't protect "fighting words" and that, to me, contempt of the American flag constitutes fighting words.

Meaning, the actions of that idiotic 14-year-old asswipe are not protected.

Lol, they sure are!

In the world that you have just constructed, using the straw man of 'fighting words', anyone can be pressing charges against anyone because they were offended....

Why cant you see that?

Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-02-13   17:48:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Dead Culture Watch (#10)

"using the straw man of 'fighting words', anyone can be pressing charges against anyone because they were offended...."

You need to keep up. I'll repost my post #1 since you obviously didn't read it:

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, "the word "offensive" is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . ."

So it's not "anyone" being offended.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-02-13   17:54:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: misterwhite, Deckard, Dead Culture Watch (#1)

Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).

"The word "offensive" is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . ."

I would say that "contempt of the flag" qualifies. But that's me.

http://www.gvpt.umd.edu/gvpt339/fightingwords.html

The authors present a lengthy review of the judicial decisions following Chaplinsky in 1942 which carved it up until only one precedent is left standing, that being about obscenity. I present the conclusion, but the whole review is at the link. Below that, excerpts taken from Gooding v. Wilson, and Cohen v. California, show what has not led to a conviction by a speech law.

Fighting Words

Ethan Silver, Ari Stein, Tony Surman, & Eric Thompson

[...]

Conclusion

With the exception of the last case (Mitchell) it is obvious that the fighting words doctrine is slowly losing it's precedential value as the Court is moving towards allowing more freedom of individual expression. In Chaplinsky, the Court concluded that "lewd, obscene, profane, libelous, and fighting words were not protected under the Constitution." (315 U.S. 568, 572, 1942). As shown, this rule has changed over time, as evidenced by the decisions of Cohen through Mitchell. We would like to conclude by showing how this rule, has been applied in other First Amendment areas.

[...]

The fighting words doctrine has been limited to require actual lawless action. The precedent reached in the cases of Terminiello, Edwards, Brandenburg and Yates v. U.S., 354 U.S. 298 (1957), was that the government may only punish a speaker when his speech incites "imminent lawless action" (Van Alsytne 146).

Cantwell and Terminiello have limited the fighting words doctrine, so that the speech must result in a direct confrontation and violent reaction. In Cantwell, a Jehovah's Witness was distributing religious literature that attacked the Catholic religion. Appellant Cantwell, handed two Catholic men a book that attacked the Catholic religion. The two men were infuriated and demanded that Cantwell leave the premises. Cantwell abided, and no violent confrontation took place. The Court decided that since there was no direct aggressive confrontation, Cantwell had to be released because a state may not "suppress the communication of views when those views are undesirable" (Van Alstyne 1021).

[...]

This precedent was further strengthened in Street. Street, a black man, was upset that civil rights leader James Meredith was shot in the state of Mississippi. After he heard the news, Street took his privately owned flag and set it on fire on a public street corner. As the flag was burning he was yelling that "we don't need no damn flag if they let that happen to Meredith" 394 U.S. 576 (1971). The Court reversed Street's conviction by stating that "any action taken with respect to the U.S. flag is expressive, and people have a First Amendment right to protest" (89 Sct. 1354,1365). The Court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits criminal sanctions against anyone advocating for a peaceful change. Flag burning is not in the same class as fighting words because it expresses an idea that cannot be prohibited because it is offensive.

[...]

The only precedent that still exists from the Chaplinsky doctrine is obscenity. In 1957, the Court stated in Roth that "obscenity is not protected under the Constitution" (Van Alstyne 165). The court limited this classification in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). In Miller the Court held that under the Roth definition, ". . . it must be established that (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value" (Van Alstyne 807-808). With this definition, the Court declared that some pornography was acceptable in the marketplace of ideas, as long as there is clearly an expression of an idea.

Our group concludes that the recent decisions of the Court, allowing for more individual expression, has eroded the Chaplinsky doctrine to a nonexistent standard. With changing times and changing Supreme Court Justices, it will be interesting to see which fighting words standard is adopted.

Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972)

Appellee appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of Georgia on the ground, among others, that the statute violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments because vague and overbroad. The Georgia Supreme Court rejected that contention and sustained the conviction. Wilson v. State, 223 Ga. 531, 156 S.E.2d 446 (1967). Appellee then sought federal habeas corpus relief in the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The District Court found that, because appellee had failed to exhaust his available state remedies as to the other grounds he relied upon in attacking his conviction, only the contention that § 26-6303 was facially unconstitutional was ripe for decision. [Footnote 1] 303 F.Supp. 952 (1969). On the merits

Page 405 U. S. 520

of that question, the District Court, in disagreement with the Georgia Supreme Court, held that § 26-6303, on its face, was unconstitutionally vague and broad, and set aside appellee’s conviction. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 431 F.2d 855 (1970). We noted probable jurisdiction of the State’s appeal, 403 U.S. 930 (1971). We affirm.

[...]

Page 405 U. S. 528

[Footnote 1]

The District Court stated,

"Count 3 of the indictment alleged that the accused "did, without provocation, use to and of M. G. Redding and in his presence, the following abusive language and opprobrious words, tending to cause a breach of the peace: White son of a bitch, I'll kill you.' 'You son of a bitch, I'll choke you to death.'"

Count 4 alleged that the defendant "did, without provocation, use to and of T. L. Raborn; and in his presence, the following abusive language and opprobrious words, tending to cause a breach of the peace: ‘You son of a bitch, if you ever put your hands on me again, I'll cut you all to pieces.'"

Id. at 534, 156 S.E.2d at 449.

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/403/15.html

COHEN v. CALIFORNIA, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)

403 U.S. 15

COHEN v. CALIFORNIA

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

No. 299.

Argued February 22, 1971

Decided June 7, 1971

Appellant was convicted of violating that part of Cal. Penal Code 415 which prohibits “maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct,” for wearing a jacket bearing the words “Fuck the Draft” in a corridor of the Los Angeles Courthouse. The Court of Appeal held that “offensive conduct” means “behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the peace,” and affirmed the conviction.

Held: Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense. Pp. 22-26.

[snip]

nolu chan  posted on  2015-02-13   20:45:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: misterwhite (#11) (Edited)

if you use the average person concept? I urge you to go to wall-mart or the dmv and take a look at your fellow man, easily offended is most everyone nowadays.

Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-02-14   3:03:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Dead Culture Watch (#13)

"easily offended is most everyone nowadays."

True. It seems to work for blacks, and gays, and atheists, and women, and Indian tribes, and Muslims ....

About time it started working for patriotic Americans who believe the flag stands for something they truly believe in.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-02-14   9:45:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: nolu chan (#12)

"Cantwell and Terminiello have limited the fighting words doctrine, so that the speech must result in a direct confrontation and violent reaction."

Looks like a green light to kick the $hit out of them.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-02-14   9:53:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com