A few curve balls for all those reading, especially on the Nazi & KKK references;

1.) Free speech doesn't cover slander.

True, but misleading - defamation in the US is extremely hard to prove. Defamation of a private figure requires proving that they made or implied false statements of fact - obvious hyperbole and satire is protected, as is opinion based on disclosed and true facts. For private persons, you are limited to actual damages stemming from the harm to your reputation, unless you prove defamation to the public figure level, which requires reckless disregard for the truth or intentional falsehood. The defendant gets the benefit of the doubt, and especially for a public person, the plaintiff must show material falsehood (if you say someone robbed 4 banks with a rifle when they robbed 2 with a pistol, it's not materially false). Most other countries have a defamation standard weighted much more heavily towards personal privacy; the US standard is extremely weighted towards free speech.

2.) Businesses and organizations can write in their own set of rules prohibiting or allowing any potentially provocative material. They have that freedom, the same way that the parents have the freedom to make sure their kids don't attend school there if it makes them feel better.

True, but this seems to be a public school. Government-run organizations are generally bound by the First Amendment, with a few exceptions. A public school is absolutely bound by the First Amendment.

3.) Kids aren't entitled to all of the same constitutional rights that adults are.

This is the key point. If these were adults, this would not fly, period. Kids do, however, have some First Amendment rights; school restrictions are more permissible than criminal laws, but are limited to maintaining an educational environment.

Its life, People will always find something to fight about. Even the smallest thing. I don't know why but we will. In this case its something stupid, yes let them were the shirt. If you don't like it go to a different school!

True, but misleading - defamation in the US is extremely hard to prove. Defamation of a private figure requires proving that they made or implied false statements of fact - obvious hyperbole and satire is protected, as is opinion based on disclosed and true facts. For private persons, you are limited to actual damages stemming from the harm to your reputation, unless you prove defamation to the public figure level, which requires reckless disregard for the truth or intentional falsehood. The defendant gets the benefit of the doubt, and especially for a public person, the plaintiff must show material falsehood (if you say someone robbed 4 banks with a rifle when they robbed 2 with a pistol, it's not materially false). Most other countries have a defamation standard weighted much more heavily towards personal privacy; the US standard is extremely weighted towards free speech.

True, but this seems to be a public school. Government-run organizations are generally bound by the First Amendment, with a few exceptions. A public school is absolutely bound by the First Amendment.

This is the key point. If these were adults, this would not fly, period. Kids do, however, have some First Amendment rights; school restrictions are more permissible than criminal laws, but are limited to maintaining an educational environment.

Really, everything is going to come down to the lawyers and judges who will bother to hear the case. I dunno how many trials you've watched on TV, if any, but a lot of the law suits that get through the system somehow and the murder charges that people get acquitted on, it's beyond belief. I did jury duty when I was 22, and I was with a relatively smart group of people each time, with the exception of the 2nd case (I was on three jury's, the foreman of my first one) where I had to explain what 'Proof beyond a reasonable doubt' is to middle aged people 5 times before they understood, even though it's on a piece of paper that the judge hands you before you go to a locked room to deliberate on a verdict. But I largely despise our court system. The Casey Anthony trial was a great example. I knew that there would be no justice served when some black guy on the jury said "No matter what the verdict is, God will be her ultimate judge". I knew the case was doomed right then.

And there I was thinking: Nobody cares about god in this case. Get that **** out of your head, a little girl died, and you need to be a man and use your brain, the thing that separates you from an ape, and apply it to this case 100%.

We asked a Floridian jury to deliver justice during the Casey Anthony trial, and they failed miserably. Then we asked another Floridian jury to do it again for the Zimmerman case, again, Florida failed. Yet around the same time, they had no problem sending some black lady to jail for 20+ years for firing a warning shot when her husband was physically abusing her. Zimmerman actually killed a guy.

Anyway, this is getting way off topic. My point is laws are no use if they're interpreted and enforced wrongly.

Being offended is a part of life. If a shirt of the country they're living in offends them, then they are going to have a real tough time once they enter the real world. This also shows how the current generation is being failed both by the education system and at home.

 

Trust me I couldn't agree more but don't shoot the messenger I'm just saying why there doing it. 

 

"This also shows how the current generation is being failed both by the education system and at home." Iv'e been saying this for years, we need to go back to the 1960s school system. (obviously no Segregation) Where everyone was offended, education was worth it and people blamed the kid for failing no the teacher...

The dumbest thing I've seen on the news to date. There's not even anything to be said here. It's just complete stupidity. If you don't like America, get the hell out and don't come back. We won't miss you.

 Personally, if they shouldn't be allowed to wear American Flags, their counter parts shouldn't be allowed to wear anything relevant to Cinco de Mayo. I feel that perhaps it'd be in their best interest to maybe find some activities to help maybe start some dialog and understanding between the two sides if it is that bad. Much better than creating more dislike for a portion of the school's population because of a knee-jerk reaction. I mean, I went to a school that had a very heavy Hispanic population, but we also had some guys that had no issue wearing the US flag, as well as some who also wore the Rebel flag, and very rarely it really ever made trouble. Of course, when there were fights, it wasn't so much because of cultural or racial differences, but more to do with typical teenage garbage, like girls and such. Even watched some girls that got into a fight with each other get tazed by the school's security guards (that one actually resulted in a big settlement if I'm not mistaken).
 

We asked a Floridian jury to deliver justice during the Casey Anthony trial, and they failed miserably. Then we asked another Floridian jury to do it again for the Zimmerman case, again, Florida failed. Yet around the same time, they had no problem sending some black lady to jail for 20+ years for firing a warning shot when her husband was physically abusing her. Zimmerman actually killed a guy.
 

 

As a Floridian, I can say the Zimmerman case was a mess (believe me, our local networks had 24/7 coverage of the case, folks watching CNN and FOX News only aired snippets of what they wanted people to hear), and the evidence was to give him a murder or even a manslaughter charge wasn't there for one reason or another. The National media did a horrendous job covering this, and was just listening to one side (hell, if you listened to how they described Sanford, FL during the whole thing, you'd think it's Birmingham, AL in the mid 1960s, but in reality the town wasn't that separated racially. I've gone there for many years, and during the stuff too and aside from the large groups bussed in from Miami and news trucks everywhere, it was the same town it typically was, and most everyone got along fine. Of course, it does have its issues, the poorer parts of Goldsboro and Washington Oaks neighborhoods come to mind here.) Personally, I felt that a Manslaughter charge would've been acceptable for him, he was incredibly negligent. It comes down to what you were given, and what you could use in a case to base your verdict on, and the defense worked hard to get as much stuff as they could thrown out! The state witnesses were incredibly weak too and couldn't make their point, and when they could, the defense found some way of throwing it out.

As for Casey, that was the textbook definition of a circus if there was one. Unfortunately, our media keeps telling us every time either one of those idiots goes to the bathroom it feels like. Right now, we're hearing about the Civil suit against her by Zenida Gonzalez, and it's looking to be as much of a freaking circus as it was before. Next time the RBBX train comes to Orlando, they should consider stopping, and picking up this clown, as Circuses seem like her thing.

Of course, there was a case where a woman got 20 years up in Jacksonville for just firing the weapon. No one killed, but still got 20 years. Thankfully, people have spoken up after the Zimmerman case, and she is being given another chance in court due to improper Jury instructions from the original case apparently. Hopefully the state compensates her like hell on this case here.

So as we see here, it isn't so much what the public feels is right, or what even the jury feels is right, but how well (or bad) the instructions are delivered to the Jury, and how they can act on those instructions. I'd HATE to have been a juror on either one of those cases. Thankfully, I should be free from it for up till September, as I already did my service to Orange County's courts.