# Fayetteville, NC History Teacher Stomps on U.S. Flag in Classroom



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 21, 2016)

Really?  Many of these students have parents serving in the military, (I believe this is close to Fort Bragg) is this really a good way to make your point?  I do not believe that it is.

Fayetteville teacher placed on leave in flag controversy


----------



## DocIllinois (Sep 21, 2016)

Because simply talking and referencing a text is just _so_ twenty years ago.  

Perhaps American History class has a lab component now.


----------



## Muppet (Sep 21, 2016)

Does this even surprise you at this point bro?

M.


----------



## Raptor (Sep 21, 2016)

This same guy was even running for a House position late last year.
Lee Francis challenging Rep. Elmer Floyd for state House District 43 seat


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 21, 2016)

Idiot!


----------



## Gunz (Sep 21, 2016)

Fuck that POS. You want to stomp on the flag, do it on your own fucking time. If any of my kid's teachers had done this, I would've gone apeshit with about a thousand other parents. You hate America, asshole? Then GTFO.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 21, 2016)

What's interesting is that I remember Massey Hill being the "reform school" when I was going to high school in Fayetteville.  My understanding is that it's now kind of a magnet school for high-performers.  And for this ass clown, apparently.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 21, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Fuck that POS. You want to stomp on the flag, do it on your own fucking time. If any of my kid's teachers had done this, I would've gone apeshit with about a thousand other parents. You hate America, asshole? Then GTFO.



Mr L. Francis, I challenge you to take your freedom of speech show to Ft. Bragg. When the colors come down some afternoon, express yourself the same way at the foot of the base flag pole. I am sure you will get plenty of comments before your are dragged off base. It's pretty easy to stomp the flag in a classroom full of teenagers who have to be there. It is quite a different matter to do so in front of a group of soldiers.

So then.....Mr. L Francis, "COWARD" will be your name until you take your dance on base.


----------



## Muppet (Sep 21, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Mr L. Francis, I challenge you to take your freedom of speech show to Ft. Bragg. When the colors come down some afternoon, express yourself the same way at the foot of the base flag pole. I am sure you will get plenty of comments before your are dragged off base. It's pretty easy to stomp the flag in a classroom full of teenagers who have to be there. It is quite a different matter to do so in front of a group of soldiers.
> 
> So then.....Mr. L Francis, "COWARD" will be your name until you take your dance on base.



But he won't do that because he is a empty shell of talk pussy. 

M.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 21, 2016)

"Yeah freedom of speech, the constitution, 2A, beer titties AMERICA"

Someone does something you don't like...

"He isn't American for it standing for the National Anthem"

"He should go to fucking somalia if he thinks it's bad here"

"All lives matter"

"Coward"

""Pussy ass bitch id fucking beat his ass, I fought for his freedom,blah blah blah..."

I'm not sure why he needed to do this. But goddamnit it isn't the end of the fucking world. I don't have a blind patriotism to any object. America is about ideas and the freedom to express them. He was demonstrating that in a fucking lecture about the first amendment and its ability to protect from exactly what happened to him... why are we upset? He proved his own point...

In my opinion the outrage caused here is no different than the intellectual dishonesty so many here claim to hate when it comes to "safe spaces" and micro-aggressions.


----------



## Muppet (Sep 21, 2016)

Agree to disagree bro. It's assholes like this that these kids will remember and think it is ok to do. We already have a an issue with kids these days being disrespectful. Now this assholes does it. I see your point but also disagree.

M.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 21, 2016)

Reminds of this fag...


----------



## Muppet (Sep 21, 2016)

???

M.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 21, 2016)

Muppet said:


> ???
> 
> M.



It is a double standard. People in our community getting all constitutional, then get butt hurt when others use those rights. 

This guy in the picture is an example of a huge double standard. He is comfortable with violence while being triggered by fireworks? 

We are all like "but the constitution says" while we crucify anyone who says something we don't agree with. This ianstance and the Colin K thing are somehow anti-veteran? Because they utilized their free speech. This guy got fired, or at least punished for making a point about the 1st amendment, because people got butt hurt. 

We cannot sit back and criticize our "disrespectful kids" and then go on to make the exact point being made by this teacher. The hypocrisy is alarming...


----------



## Muppet (Sep 21, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> It is a double standard. People in our community getting all constitutional, then get butt hurt when others use those rights.
> 
> This guy in the picture is an example of a huge double standard. He is comfortable with violence while being triggered by fireworks?
> 
> ...



But, at what level do we stop the disrespect. It's ok for these jerk offs to disrespect the flag, BLM to say "death to whites and cops" but if I say the "N" word, I am racist. Where does free speech stop and turn into being an asshole to make a point, like "the U.S. Flag stands for oppression we endure". It is a double standard bro, on BOTH sides. I get called a fucking honkey cracker when I am working the projects as a medic because I am bald, have ink on my arms and look like I am in the KKK. If I call them out, I am the jerk off. Talk about DOUBLE standard bro.

M.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 21, 2016)

I don't like what he did...but I'm not about to call for his job.  What gets to me though, is that if one of the students had a confederate flag on his pickup truck , claiming his right to free speech, this teacher would be first in line to see him expelled for his racist believes.  

See also:  Double Standard

To add:  I was looking for a picture of a specific rebel flag to make my point and could not find in Google Images.  I tried "Shopping" instead.  Do you know that the primary search engines have actually filtered that out?  
Both Google and Yahoo give you no results found, only BING would actually give you a list of websites to buy a rebel/confederate flag.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 21, 2016)

Muppet said:


> But, at what level do we stop the disrespect. It's ok for these jerk offs to disrespect the flag, BLM to say "death to whites and cops" but if I say the "N" word, I am racist. Where does free speech stop and turn into being an asshole to make a point, like "the U.S. Flag stands for oppression we endure". It is a double standard bro, on BOTH sides. I get called a fucking honkey cracker when I am working the projects as a medic because I am bald, have ink on my arms and look like I am in the KKK. If I call them out, I am the jerk off. Talk about DOUBLE standard bro.
> 
> M.



Point by point:

It is okay to disrespect the flag. Period. It is free speech firstly, and secondly it is a fucking flag.

Show me where people say death to cops and white people in great numbers, or do you mean individuals? Either way that isn't ok, and it isn't right...however it is protected speech, as long as it isn't actively targeting or threatening individuals.

If you call someone the "N" word you are racist, that is the end of the discussion. We all know what that word entails, the history, and the racism behind it. 

Equating a white person being called a "honkey" with a black person being called a "nigger" is absolutely false equivalency. 

Trying to then equate the 400 years of racism to being called a honkey in the ghetto is disingenuous as shit. It isn't the same.At All.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 21, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I don't like what he did...but I'm not about to call for his job.  What gets to me though, is that if one of the students had a confederate flag on his pickup truck , claiming his right to free speech, this teacher would be first in line to see him expelled for his racist believes.
> 
> See also:  Double Standard
> 
> ...



You have an example of a student being expelled for having a confederate flag on their car?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 21, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> It is a double standard. People in our community getting all constitutional, then get butt hurt when others use those rights.
> 
> This guy in the picture is an example of a huge double standard. He is comfortable with violence while being triggered by fireworks?
> 
> ...



What I see from Mr. Fireworks, is miles apart from the teacher stomping on our flag in a classroom full of students. 

I don't know much about Mr. Fireworks, he may or may not be a combat vet, but he is just asking folks to take their stuff down the street some.

Mr. flag stomper is cramming his free speech down the throats of a captive teenaged audience. They can't really discuss the subject with him on equal terms. If a, or several students,  express their  feelings and leave his class, they get nailed for cutting his class. Mr flag stomper holds all the cards with just the kids in the room. Now, if you bring the kid's parents in the room and he expresses himself in the same way, things become more equal. At least that is the way it seems to me.


----------



## Muppet (Sep 21, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Point by point:
> 
> It is okay to disrespect the flag. Period. It is free speech firstly, and secondly it is a fucking flag.
> 
> ...



Disagree again. But I see we will not understand each other. No matter how far we both go with this, we will not agree.

M.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 21, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> You have an example of a student being expelled for having a confederate flag on their car?



I never said that anyone had been expelled for it, but "Pitchfork Nation" is quick to be outraged and call for justice when they feel someone is politically insensitive to someone else's culture.  In my experience, rarely do I see that same outrage when someone is politically incorrect or insensitive to the things that I might find sacred.  

Again, I'm not calling for his head, or even his suspension or termination, but you cannot have it both ways.

20 Students Suspended for wearing confederate flag clothing

Student suspended for displaying confederate flag on truck

School threatens student with expulsion over ‘gang symbol’ — the Confederate flag


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 21, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I never said that anyone had been expelled for it, but "Pitchfork Nation" is quick to be outraged and call for justice when they feel someone is politically insensitive to someone else's culture.  In my experience, rarely do I see that same outrage when someone is politically incorrect or insensitive to the things that I might find sacred.
> 
> Again, I'm not calling for his head, or even his suspension or termination, but you cannot have it both ways.
> 
> ...



I absolutely agree that those instances are total BS.


----------



## DocIllinois (Sep 21, 2016)

North Carolina Gen. Stat.  Ch. 14, Art. 52, § 14-381 - Desecration of State and United States flag.

'It shall be unlawful for any person willfully and knowingly to cast contempt upon any flag of the United States or upon any flag of North Carolina by public acts of physical contact including, but not limited to, mutilation, defiling, defacing or trampling. Any person violating this section shall be deemed guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.'

I haven't yet found evidence of the above being repealed or modified.  I do admit that it is possible Mr. Francis was acting against his will in his own class room, but would be surprised if this were the case.

Hunh.


----------



## AWP (Sep 21, 2016)

If there's a law against it, he needs to be charged and tried. If he thinks the law is garbage, that's why we have an appeals process.

Without the law though...there's a real problem here. His BS with the flag is just asshole behavior through and through. This wasn't a big deal in the past though because people weren't a bunch of look-at-me-dickfucks and had some respect and decency to them. There are a metric shit ton of ways to protest and some were used successfully in the past, but this guy needed his 15 min. That brings me to the next point: the media's a pack of vermin. This isn't newsworthy and only feeds the dirtbags, fueling their hunt for another 15 min.

This isn't a flag problem or 1st Amendment problem, this is a societal problem with no end in sight.

I wonder if our children will hate us for the world we're leaving them.


----------



## policemedic (Sep 22, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> "Yeah freedom of speech, the constitution, 2A, beer titties AMERICA"
> 
> Someone does something you don't like...
> 
> ...



It's two sides of the same coin.  Yes, the 1st Amendment protects this act of expression.  But it also protects the backlash of comments the act generates.  Both are protected, and as long as it remains words, then it's all good.  At the end of the day, if you don't want to deal with the responses then don't open the conversation.

Interestingly, I just had a very respectful and dignified conversation with another educated gentleman (I'm not being facetious) about this issue.  The 1st Amendment exists to protect unpopular speech.


----------



## policemedic (Sep 22, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> ".... beer titties AMERICA"



Well....fuck yeah.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 22, 2016)

I'll defend your right to stomp on the flag...but don't do it on _my fucking tax money_ in front of my kids in an environment they are not free to walk out on without possible disciplinary consequences. You want to stomp on the flag, go ahead. But not when parents are paying your fucking salary.

I would also argue that this teacher knew very well that his act would bring publicity and _that_ may have been his entire motive. He is, after all, a politician.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 22, 2016)

[Q


----------



## moobob (Sep 22, 2016)

The guy is a douchebag and is exhibiting douchebag behavior. Your reaction shouldn't be "but that's his constitutionally protected right". It should be: What a dickhead.


----------



## policemedic (Sep 22, 2016)

moobob said:


> The guy is a douchebag and is exhibiting douchebag behavior. Your reaction shouldn't be "but that's his constitutionally protected right". It should be: What a dickhead.



Why not both? Both are true.


----------



## policemedic (Sep 22, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> If there's a law against it, he needs to be charged and tried. If he thinks the law is garbage, that's why we have an appeals process.
> 
> Without the law though...there's a real problem here. His BS with the flag is just asshole behavior through and through. This wasn't a big deal in the past though because people weren't a bunch of look-at-me-dickfucks and had some respect and decency to them. There are a metric shit ton of ways to protest and some were used successfully in the past, but this guy needed his 15 min. That brings me to the next point: the media's a pack of vermin. This isn't newsworthy and only feeds the dirtbags, fueling their hunt for another 15 min.
> 
> ...



We have a law in PA. 

  18 PA C.S.   § 2102.  Desecration of flag.
        (a)  Offense defined.--A person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree if, in any manner, he:
            (1)  for exhibition or display places any marks, writing
        or design of any nature or any advertisement upon any flag;
            (2)  exposes to public view any such marked or defiled
        flag;
            (3)  manufactures, sells, exposes for sale, gives away,
        or has in his possession for any of such purposes any article
        which uses the flag for the purposes of advertisement, sale
        or trade; or
            (4)  publicly or privately mutilates, defaces, defiles,
        or tramples upon, or casts contempt in any manner upon any   flag.
        (b)  Exception.--Subsection (a) of this section does not
     apply:
            (1)  To any act permitted by the statutes of the United
        States, or by the regulations of the armed forces of the
        United States.
            (2)  In a case where the government of the United States
        has granted the use of such flag, standard, color, or ensign
        as a trademark.
            (3)  To any writing or instrument, or stationery for use
        in correspondence on any of which shall be printed, painted, or placed said flag, disconnected from any advertisement for the purpose of sale or trade.
            (4)  To any patriotic or political demonstration or
        decorations.
        (c)  Definition.--As used in this section the word "flag"
     shall include any flag, standard, color, ensign or any picture
     or representation of any thereof, made of any substance or
     represented on any substance and of any size, purporting to be a flag, standard, color or ensign of the United States or of the
     Commonwealth, or a picture or a representation of any thereof, upon which shall be shown the colors or any color, or any combination of colors, or either the stars or the stripes, or
 the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or
 anything which the person seeing the same, may reasonably
 believe the same to represent the flag, colors, standard or
 ensign of the United States or of the Commonwealth.

That said, I believe any prosecution would fail.  I'm doubtful the DA would even approve the charge. 

In any case, one could argue that charging them gives them another public forum to spout their garbage.


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 22, 2016)

policemedic said:


> That said, I believe any prosecution would fail.  I'm doubtful the DA would even approve the charge.


Yep.  There's a strong precedent for this kind of protected speech.  Any case brought before a judge would get thrown out in 2 seconds.


----------



## moobob (Sep 26, 2016)

Captive audience, state government employee. I'd  be willing to bet that his class is more indoctrination session than history class.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 26, 2016)

Dude is now a local hero.Fayetteville teacher who stepped on flag plans to march Tuesday


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 30, 2016)




----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 30, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> View attachment 16757



Funny how that works out, isn't it?


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 30, 2016)

I think a lot of posters are misunderstanding the *meaning*, and the importance of *meaning*, in this news story.  Mr. Francis, in an attempt to illustrate the extent of first amendment protections, decided to do a physical demonstration.  It wasn't a protest.  He wasn't taking a shit on America or anything.  He was demonstrating how the Supreme Court interprets protected speech in a very visceral way.

So what is the difference between a protester stepping on an American flag and Mr. Francis stepping on an American flag?  Superficially,  they're the exact same act - put the flag on the ground, put your foot on it. What differentiates the two, however, is the intent and meaning behind the act.  While one person is expressing displeasure with the United States for whatever reason, the other is illustrating a salient point about the nature of free speech.  Needless to say that Mr. Francis' students probably won't forget about Texas v. Johnson any time soon.

Let's look at a similar situation involving flag burning:

What is the difference between a protester burning the flag






And the proper disposal of an old flag via burning?





Again, superficially they're the same act:  you're taking a flag and setting it on fire.  But I doubt that any one of you would take issue with the disposal of a United States flag because you understand that *meaning* behind the act is completely different.  Now, we know that the meaning behind Mr. Francis' act was to teach high school children about free speech, even if it superficially resembled an act of protest.  Why, then, are so many of you upset about it?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Sep 30, 2016)

Not only meaning, but purpose. Disposal of a flag is a somber event and point of pride to render final honors to our nation's colors, after they have served out their lifetime as such.

The simple fact is that while it falls under protected speech, it's still disrepect and offensive to the vast majority of people.  There are multiple other ways that the point could have been made without disrepect to OUR colors. 

Considering I chewed out then departed never to return, the american history teacher in my HS for covering the two whopping paragraphs encompassing the Vietnam war by bragging about how he fled to Canada, I can safely say that the flag would not have touched the ground and there would have been choice words said on my part.

Did the teacher in fact even OWN that flag himself?  I'm prone to believe it wasn't even his to perform such acts with.....standard classroom issue does not confer ownership...


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 30, 2016)

I remember being at a military schoool once, where a flag was treated poorly. A lot of good guys got pretty upset. The teaching point was "why?" It has helped keep me pretty even keeled in response to things like this ever since.


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 30, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I remember being at a military schoool once, where a flag was treated poorly. A lot of good guys got pretty upset. The teaching point was "why?" It has helped keep me pretty even keeled in response to things like this ever since.



Really? How so?


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 30, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I think a lot of posters are misunderstanding the *meaning*, and the importance of *meaning*, in this news story.  Mr. Francis, in an attempt to illustrate the extent of first amendment protections, decided to do a physical demonstration.  It wasn't a protest.  He wasn't taking a shit on America or anything.  He was demonstrating how the Supreme Court interprets protected speech in a very visceral way.
> 
> So what is the difference between a protester stepping on an American flag and Mr. Francis stepping on an American flag?  Superficially,  they're the exact same act - put the flag on the ground, put your foot on it. What differentiates the two, however, is the intent and meaning behind the act.  While one person is expressing displeasure with the United States for whatever reason, the other is illustrating a salient point about the nature of free speech.  Needless to say that Mr. Francis' students probably won't forget about Texas v. Johnson any time soon.
> 
> ...



Because it is  disgusting treatment of the flag that's why!


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 30, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I think a lot of posters are misunderstanding the *meaning*, and the importance of *meaning*, in this news story.  Mr. Francis, in an attempt to illustrate the extent of first amendment protections, decided to do a physical demonstration.  It wasn't a protest.  He wasn't taking a shit on America or anything.  He was demonstrating how the Supreme Court interprets protected speech in a very visceral way.
> 
> So what is the difference between a protester stepping on an American flag and Mr. Francis stepping on an American flag?  Superficially,  they're the exact same act - put the flag on the ground, put your foot on it. What differentiates the two, however, is the intent and meaning behind the act.  While one person is expressing displeasure with the United States for whatever reason, the other is illustrating a salient point about the nature of free speech.  Needless to say that Mr. Francis' students probably won't forget about Texas v. Johnson any time soon.
> 
> ...


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 30, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> Not only meaning, but purpose. Disposal of a flag is a somber event and point of pride to render final honors to our nation's colors, after they have served out their lifetime as such.


Is teaching young adults about the scope of free speech not important?  



> The simple fact is that while it falls under protected speech, it's still disrepect and offensive to the vast majority of people. There are multiple other ways that the point could have been made without disrepect to OUR colors.


Mr. Francis even addresses this in the video attached to the article


> "My educational philosophy is that it has to be relevant.  It has to be something that students can see, students can feel, student can connect with.  You read something all day...you can watch someone being slapped in the face and think its hurts, but until it happens to you, you don't know what it feels like.



Weren't we talking about the silliness of "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" not too long ago?  How taking offense at something was being "PC"?  Suddenly, it's terribly provocative and wrong to use a flag as a teaching point about the importance of fundamental rights because it's _offensive_.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 30, 2016)

I think you're absolutely right, it's all about intent.  I think it's quite clear that what Mr. Francis intended all along was to impose his personal political views on his students, in a manner which would be extremely offensive to his (largely military-affiliated) students, in order to bring attention to himself and his cause, (and to promote his political ambitions) and ultimately generate a payday from the local school district after they (predictably) took prudent and reasonable steps to discipline him for his misconduct.

And no, what he did isn't covered by "academic freedom" either.

This isn't "mistaken meaning," it's a clear case of "manufactured martyrdom."


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 30, 2016)

Did I miss something about this case?  How is he pushing his political views on his students when he was illustrating well-established case law?

While I don't agree with punishing the student who took the photo, I also think that the acrimony against Mr. Francis is unfounded.  It doesn't seem like he did this to generate attention for any sort of cause, and the article you linked certainly doesn't say anything about that.  The second article doesn't seem to say anything about political ambitions (beyond a very short-lived prior bid for state representative, for which the article doesn't even give a date).  
Also, this bit made me laugh


> If nothing else, the offensive lesson is a reminder of how public schools have become incubators for un-American activities.


Todd Starnes, of course


----------



## Ranger Psych (Sep 30, 2016)

Ok, I am on my tablet here in Memphis (where are you when we have nightly spam, anyway)  so pardon me for not bothering with quoting....

But, we are talking about mfing high school. This isnt ADULTS TEACHING ADULTS, ITS MINORS FORCED TO ATTEND.

Captive, forced, audience. The kids that walked could be handled through truancy, if the letter but not intent of the law was followed.

I want to make an educational point. Go sit in the iron chair, and reread this entire thread while doing so. Forced situation, you dislike even the thought of it. Gee, concept.

You obviously didnt enjoy being forced to do things, else you would have reenlisted. You wanted the freedom of choice, for example, to be able to blather your offensive point of view, contest everyone else's, then wonder when we flip shit about a forced audience in their arguably most formative years, towards the banner of that which we should all rally under for equality, dignity, respect snd fucking humanity,  in this time of everything else before American....and the subsequent social disarray from focusing on our differences.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 30, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> Really? How so?



If you can't tell from my post I'm not going more into it.


----------



## Brill (Oct 1, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> Ok, I am on my tablet here in Memphis (where are you when we have nightly spam, anyway)  so pardon me for not bothering with quoting....
> 
> But, we are talking about mfing high school. This isnt ADULTS TEACHING ADULTS, ITS MINORS FORCED TO ATTEND.
> 
> ...



So you're "pro" school vouchers?

Out of ALL the First Amendment cases to highlight our freedom of speech right, why this one? Military funerals, porn, political speech, etc are all less inflammatory for USMIL kids.


----------



## Brill (Oct 1, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I think a lot of posters are misunderstanding the *meaning*, and the importance of *meaning*, in this news story.  Mr. Francis, in an attempt to illustrate the extent of first amendment protections, decided to do a physical demonstration.  It wasn't a protest.  He wasn't taking a shit on America or anything.  He was demonstrating how the Supreme Court interprets protected speech in a very visceral way.
> 
> So what is the difference between a protester stepping on an American flag and Mr. Francis stepping on an American flag?  Superficially,  they're the exact same act - put the flag on the ground, put your foot on it. What differentiates the two, however, is the intent and meaning behind the act.  While one person is expressing displeasure with the United States for whatever reason, the other is illustrating a salient point about the nature of free speech.  Needless to say that Mr. Francis' students probably won't forget about Texas v. Johnson any time soon.
> 
> ...



Because this teacher's actions are used for anti-American propaganda by our enemies. I can talk shit about my family all day but you disparage Mrs Hogwhollap, and we shall engage in fisticuffs my good Sir!


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 1, 2016)

I think they can find more than enough in official government action for that; they don't need this one teacher.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 1, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> I think they can find more than enough in official government action for that; they don't need this one teacher.



Yeah or from our small handed Presidential candidate.


----------



## Etype (Oct 1, 2016)

Racial slurs are also protected free speech. What would happen if a student uttered one of them? Questions that should be considered.

There are a great number of things that are 'allowed' or 'protected,' but restraint is also a virtue that everyone possesses and should exercise.

Maybe that was the next lesson.


----------



## Etype (Oct 1, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Trying to then equate the 400 years of racism to being called a honkey in the ghetto is disingenuous as shit. It isn't the same.At All.


This is a tired, nonsensical argument, and I've debated it first hand in the military.

The overwhelming majority of white folks weren't involved in slavery by way of their lineage; and/or like myself, their families weren't even in the US yet.

People today aren't responsible for what happened three generations ago. This isnt N Korea where children are responsible for finishing their dead parents sentences in political re-education camps.

If that is the case, Irish Catholics owe me some money as well as any German Americans with Nazi ties- they are the reasons why both my sets of grandparents had to leave Europe.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 1, 2016)

Etype said:


> This is a tired, nonsensical argument, and I've debated it first hand in the military.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of white folks weren't involved in slavery by way of their lineage; and/or like myself, their families weren't even in the US yet.
> 
> ...



Yeah racism and slavery are different things. Racism continues. I never mentioned slavery.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 1, 2016)

Etype said:


> This is a tired, nonsensical argument, and I've debated it first hand in the military.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of white folks weren't involved in slavery by way of their lineage; and/or like myself, their families weren't even in the US yet.
> 
> ...



In some of memberships lifetimes Jim Crow laws were enforced. In certain places in the south it is written into home deeds that blacks cannot purchase the home. Pretending that our nation doesn't have racism etched into its history is ignoring reality.


----------



## Brill (Oct 1, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> In some of memberships lifetimes Jim Crow laws were enforced. In certain places in the south it is written into home deeds that blacks cannot purchase the home. Pretending that our nation doesn't have racism etched into its history is ignoring reality.



Shelly vs Kraemer ruled those covenants violated 14th Amendment.

Interesting case too. Individuals can buy/sell as they wish but the state cannot enforce racial restrictions.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 1, 2016)

Etype said:


> There are a great number of things that are 'allowed' or 'protected,' but restraint is also a virtue that everyone possesses and should exercise.



Yes.  

To add - 

To feel like a country united behind something, there have to be some things that are sacred. Period. Not standing for the National Anthem and desecrating the flag are just a few. 

To allow ourselves to be shamed for "making such a big deal about it" chips away at the foundation of patriotism and the feeling that there is something special in what we have. 

Truth be told, it pisses me off to no end when "the enlightened" tell me to lighten up or get over it when I express outrage or disappointment over behavior which I find offensive to me as a proud American. 

At this pace, where will we be in a generation from now?  Two generations?  We will be the continent of North America. It will be completely acceptable to scoff at those who desire to hold onto old traditions like patriotism. 

Sometimes It seems as if the Tinfoil crowd who fear the New-World-Order aren't as crazy as we make them out to be. That makes me genuinely sad.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 1, 2016)

Etype said:


> Racial slurs are also protected free speech. What would happen if a student uttered one of them? Questions that should be considered.


_The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn_ is still taught in many high school literature courses despite its provocative nature.  I'm well aware of efforts to try to remove it, but its an enduring classic _precisely_ because of the lessons it teaches us.

This is not necessarily directed at you, but I'm seeing an odd double standard from previous threads.  When minorities are offended, the response is: "Suck it up", "grow a spine", "it's not that bad!".  But when you offend the sensibilities of the military or children of the military, it suddenly becomes A Very Serious Issue.  Which is it gonna be guys?



lindy said:


> Because this teacher's actions are used for anti-American propaganda by our enemies. I can talk shit about my family all day but you disparage Mrs Hogwhollap, and we shall engage in fisticuffs my good Sir!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 1, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> This is not necessarily directed at you, but I'm seeing an odd double standard from previous threads. When minorities are offended, the response is: "Suck it up", "grow a spine", "it's not that bad!". <snip>



 I think that you're unfairly generalizing when you say that.  I will be among the first to stand up for those who are wronged. That said, the very people who I would stand up for will be the first to tell me to "suck it up", "grow a spine", "it's not that bad!"  When I  raise concerns over things that they have said or done that offend my principles. 

 If there is a double standard, it is there, and adds to the reason I may not always appear as sympathetic to their causes when I know there track record for supporting the things that are important to me.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 1, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I think that you're unfairly generalizing when you say that.  I will be among the first to stand up for those who are wronged. That said, the very people who I would stand up for will be the first to tell me to "suck it up", "grow a spine", "it's not that bad!"  When I  raise concerns over things that they have said or done that offend my principles.
> 
> If there is a double standard, it is there, and adds to the reason I may not always appear as sympathetic to their causes when I know there track record for supporting the things that are important to me.


That's a fair criticism.  I mean, I'm not citing specific posts, but rather generalized arguments.  If anything, it's something that should be considered in the future, i.e. "Before I dismiss this as 'not being offensive', maybe I should think about how it affects this person (or group)"


----------



## Etype (Oct 1, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> In some of memberships lifetimes Jim Crow laws were enforced. In certain places in the south it is written into home deeds that blacks cannot purchase the home. Pretending that our nation doesn't have racism etched into its history is ignoring reality.


The simplified debtate-
Black guy- slavery.
White guy- don't care, never owned one, never benefited from it.
Black guy- Jim Crow.
White guy- don't care, didn't vote for it.
Black guy- racist.
White guy- ...


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 1, 2016)

Even though I believe this individual to be a grade A jackass for making a "feet-on" component in a high school Am Hist class, I do recognize that he is Constitutionally protected.

  I also recognize that feeling about the flag seems to shift to and fro with time and events, IMO.  This can be especially true in this country, which is always in a state of social evolution, if not revolution.

  If this person would have been shown placing his dirty feet onto the flag at the end of 2001, for instance, I think he'd have found the court of public opinion to be an unbearable weight.


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 1, 2016)

I do not agree with a moral or recognize a legal right for him to do what he did.

/period.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 1, 2016)

lindy said:


> So you're "pro" school vouchers?
> 
> Out of ALL the First Amendment cases to highlight our freedom of speech right, why this one? Military funerals, porn, political speech, etc are all less inflammatory for USMIL kids.



What the fuck is a school voucher?


----------



## Totentanz (Oct 1, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> What the fuck is a school voucher?



Effectively the ability to take your tax dollars to a school other than the municipal school system (the voucher pays tuition - or a portion of it- at a private institution if you decide the public one sucks).

At least in theory it brings something of a free market to education.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 1, 2016)

Makes sense.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 1, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> Effectively the ability to take your tax dollars to a school other than the municipal school system (the voucher pays tuition - or a portion of it- at a private institution if you decide the public one sucks).
> 
> At least in theory it brings something of a free market to education.



Sadly, this is a no go in Minnesota. There is no stronger union in Minnesota then the teachers union, and they have fought this every step of the way. There is no way they would willingly permit people to take their tax dollars out of the public school system and direct that money towards schools and education that they felt offered an education more effective for their children then what the state is able to offer.

 If you choose to send your children to a charter school or private school in Minnesota, you will do so on top of the taxes you pay towards the public schools even though you don't use them.


----------

