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

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

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


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: 1255
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

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 12.

#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   Untrace   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   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 12.

#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 09:53:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 12.

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