jump to navigation

Ninth Circuit: Mexicans are Violent, Savage Animals February 27, 2014

Posted by Sobek in News.

…and therefore whites must lose their freedoms.

At least, that’s what this decision seems to imply, right?

Mexicans are the new Muslims?  I never got that memo.


1. AKA John Galt - February 27, 2014

Reblogged this on U.S. Constitutional Free Press.

2. geoff - February 28, 2014

One wonders what the decision would have been had a student wearing a Mexican flag been censured by the school for fear of incitement. I suspect that the “heckler’s veto” wouldn’t have been invoked, and his right to express himself upheld.

3. aproposofnothing - February 28, 2014

So much for that zero tolerance anti-bullying policy the school had.

4. OBF - February 28, 2014

I know, don’t let anyone wear a shirt. Should keep truancy down as well.

5. Retired Geezer - February 28, 2014

I know, don’t let anyone wear a shirt.

Uh, does that include females?

asking for a friend

6. OBF - February 28, 2014

Certainly. Equality for all and improved attendance in class.

7. Mark in NJ - February 28, 2014

I swear I’m not trying to be provocative, but I’m missing the point…

Doesn’t the act of the American flag shirt wearer strike you as a deliberately inflammatory gesture (in an environment with a known history of ethnic conflict)?

No one’s saying he can’t wear that shirt on 04-May or 06-May (except maybe Mr Blackwell?) so I don’t see that any essential freedoms are at risk…and I don’t see why a gesture that seems like obvious baiting of the Hispanic students should trump the legitimate concerns of the school officials.

8. Cathy - February 28, 2014

I heard the morning news guys playfully discussing this on talk radio here in Dallas this morning. I recall when the event happened and was on the news.

I THINK if I heard correctly — wearing the American Flag shirt on that particular day was ‘considered’ inciting. Yea. Makes me sick.

I just roll my eyes. This new way of being fearful of gangs — actually a very old disgusting way of thinking — is that these folks who threaten other students can flaunt and draw attention to themselves with stuff that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GETTING AN EDUCATION and the regular folk who most of the time have manners and can be depended upon to behave themselves are EXPECTED to be wimps and accommodate the display and distraction of the aggressors. I’m getting tired of all of it.

AND everyone keeps blabbing about how we all are not supposed to bully?? Makes me sick.

9. lauraw - February 28, 2014

Mark, can you think of some other context or situation in which the authorities would be correct to crack down on the violent response, and not the provocative action?

10. lauraw - February 28, 2014

I’ll wait, man. Think about it.

Cathy - February 28, 2014

*waits with Laura*

*sigh… drums fingers on bar… rolls eyes…*

11. daveintexas - February 28, 2014

>> but I’m missing the point…

I see that.

12. Mark in NJ - February 28, 2014

Hi Laura – I may be looking at the case from a more practical pt of view. I have no sympathy for the shirt wearer and am very sympathetic with a group of administrators charged with maintaining a safe environment under what sound like difficult conditions.

Given how the court’s decision went, the downside is that the guy can’t wear his shirt on May 5; but if the decision had gone the other way, the downside is potentially much worse (people hurt, property damage, etc.)

Are we really talking about the fact that the shirt was printed with the American flag, and the judges have an ingrained bias that they wouldn’t have against, say, an LBGT rainbow?

13. Jimbro - February 28, 2014

*sets reminder to not wear American flag shirt on St. Patrick’s Day*

14. drakono - February 28, 2014

“Hi Laura – I may be looking at the case from a more practical pt of view.”

Thanks for coming down to our level to explain it to us.

“I have no sympathy for the shirt wearer…”

Yeah, I’m done here.

15. geoff - February 28, 2014

Mark, there are a number of aspects which are troubling:

1) Wearing the American flag while in the US or its territories should never be an issue at any time. The right to display the flag should be protected by the authorities.

2) The Heckler’s Veto means infringing on someone’s rights due to the threat of violence. It is an ugly necessity when violence is imminent (at least, that’s what the courts have ruled), but is just a convenient capitulation when violence is not imminent. Abusing one person’s rights to keep the peace? That’s a fair trade? Or a wise long-term strategy? It’s the first step towards fascism and smacks of the old “Peace in our time” blunder.

Court decisions on the Heckler’s Veto have been varied, but Wikipedia says that the general distinction has been imminent violence (like an angry mob gathering around a speaker) vs. the simple fear of violence. It’s sad to see this decision fall on the wrong side of the line.

3) The administration had other choices (cancel the Cinco de Mayo celebration, hold reconciliation meetings, increase security, hold an equivalent celebration for the US, etc.). They chose trampling constitutional rights instead.

4) Yes, I do believe the 9th Circuit Court would have come to a different decision had it been a minority wearing a t-shirt on the 4th of July. That’s just the way the 9th Circuit rolls.

16. Sobek - March 1, 2014

“…but I’m missing the point…”

AllahPundit puts it better than I do, as usual: “In other words, a bully can get the principal’s office to silence you by promising to beat your ass if they don’t.”


And why didn’t the Mexican-flag-wearing kids have to take off their Mexican flags? Again from Allah: “If you want to make your classmate shut up, you need to credibly threaten violence. That’s how ‘free speech’ works in the nation’s schools. Take a lesson, America.”

And why wouldn’t Allah sum up the case that way? That’s precisely how U.S. Supreme Court Justice Breyer (*spit*) thinks vis-a-vis Islam and the first Amendment:


Key quote from Ace: “In America, your right to be free of religious critiques is dependent on how willing you are to kill for it.”

17. geoff - March 1, 2014

I liked the introductory paragraphs of this piece at the American Thinker:

A federal court has ruled that an American school student has a right to free expression — unless that American might be threatened for that expression by others, in which case state officials have the right to quash the offending expression to appease potential aggressors.

Which, ipso facto, means Americans have no right to free expression at all. For if it’s not the government’s role to protect expression that is thought to be offensive by a vicious mob, what purpose does the First Amendment have? “Safe” expression needs no protection, after all.

18. xbradtc - March 1, 2014

The standard is actually that students have limited 1st Amendment rights, and the school can infringe them for “substantial disturbance” in the classroom. Not “imminent threat of violence.” That’s a much lower bar to hurdle, and frankly, I think the district met that burden in court.


Not every issue decided by the court reflects what should be a blindingly obvious policy decision. The school could just as easily permitted the student to wear the American flag shirt, and reminded all students that disruption in school carried with it the probability of punishment.

19. lauraw - March 1, 2014

I fail to see the practicality in allowing ethnic violence and threats to prevail over freedom and rule of law. This is an exceedingly shortsighted remedy, to the point of being no remedy at all.

If we were all as practical-minded as Mark, the civil rights movement would never have happened.

20. lauraw - March 1, 2014

…and Mark’s lack of sympathy for the kid in the US flag tee is irrelevant to the law.

One need not be a sympathetic character to Mark in order to qualify for protection of the law, and one need not justify their rightful possession of civil rights to Mark, or please Mark’s bias. WTF, man? Are you serious? Did you actually say that? Who cares whether you agree with the act or not?

I may think the kid was being needlessly provocative too, but that doesn’t mean I think everybody who acts like an asshole needs to be silenced for their own good.

People get to be assholes, and their speech is still protected. What is the use of protecting speech, otherwise? Nobody needs to protect people who provoke no one.

I would think we would have learned by now that it doesn’t matter what your point of view is and it doesn’t matter what your particular sympathy or bias is; the law is the law, rights are rights, and crimes are crimes.

21. lauraw - March 1, 2014

The administrators are certainly in a bad position. I guess they should bow to threats and violence, and they should advise students that Mexicans are not obligated to follow the laws of this country on May 5. This seems quite reasonable.

I can’t see how this could lead to any more trouble down the road.

22. geoff - March 1, 2014

The standard is actually that students have limited 1st Amendment rights, and the school can infringe them for “substantial disturbance” in the classroom. Not “imminent threat of violence.” That’s a much lower bar to hurdle, and frankly, I think the district met that burden in court.

That, upon reading the actual decision, is true, though the court explicitly cites the threat of violence. So yes, I now agree that under the precedent of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District the court’s decision was justified. But I still believe that the Heckler’s Veto is an awful guide for administrative policy.

23. Sobek - March 1, 2014

Just as a point of clarification, the First Amendment is intended to protect an individual against the government, not against the force of the mob.

In this case, though, the administrator (who I admit was not in a good position) is the voice of the government. The mob used that voice to effectuate its threats. The mob knows it can do so again in the future.

I also agree with anyone who argues that students in a school setting do not have the same scope of First Amendment protections as in other situations. So I’m not talking about re-vamping the basic rules under Tinker. I’m arguing that under these particular circumstances, the Court was badly in the wrong. They take for granted that the Mexicans are an unruly mob who cannot be controlled, disciplined, or taught reason, and therefore the white kids must be silenced for their own protection. That is offensive to every party involved.

24. daveintexas - March 1, 2014

Mark’s sympathy for the administrators of the school prefers rather that you shut up.

25. obf - March 1, 2014

I assume there was an American flag flying in front of the school, flying from a flag pole. (Maybe that concept is a little too far out for California.) Had the Mexican kids demanded that the flag be lowered would the 9th have agreed to take down the flag?

If not this year will the Mexican kids demand the flag be removed next year?

May 5th is a celebration of the Mexican beating the crap out of the French. The USA wasn’t involved. Why would any Mexican descendant be concerned about the US flag on a French vs. Mexico day of celebration?

Sounds like the bullies are looking for a cause. This one will do.

26. obf - March 1, 2014

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

(Except for May 5th)

27. digitalbrownshirt - March 2, 2014

Abandoning California will continue to be one of my best decisions in life.

28. xbradtc - March 3, 2014

Sobek, the Court didn’t rule that. The school administration assumed it.

The Court ruled properly. The school administration behaved shamefully. But within its scope.

29. Sobek - March 3, 2014

Time to ban XBrad …

In fact, you’re all banned. Every last one of you.

30. lauraw - March 4, 2014

*leaves a flaming piñata in Sobeks’ front yard and peels out in my lowrider*

31. osoloco11 - March 4, 2014

See what happens when you make Portuguese people Hispanic!

32. Jazz - March 4, 2014

I know, don’t let anyone wear a shirt. Should keep truancy down as well.

Uh, does that include females?


33. osoloco11 - March 4, 2014

As the resident Splitter Whisp, I can say that Mexicans bully school districts all the time. NMs own Senator JEFF spent 30 years in the Senate and was known for his Stay In School and keep sugary drinks out of schools legislative wizardry. Our schools have to monitor fades and wearing rosaries as jewelry.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: