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

"Tim Walz Wants the Worst"

Border Patrol Agents SMASH Window and Drag Man from Car in Minnesota Chaos

"Dear White Liberals: Blacks and Hispanics Want No Part of Your Anti-ICE Protests"

"The Silliest Venezuela Take You Will Read Today"

Michael Reagan, Son of Ronald Reagan, Dies at 80

Patel: "Minnesota Fraud Probes 'Buried' Under Biden"

"There’s a Word for the West’s Appeasement of Militant Islam"

"The Bondi Beach Jihad: Sharia Supremacism and Jew Hatred, Again"

"This Is How We Win a New Cold War With China"

"How Europe Fell Behind"

"The Epstein Conspiracy in Plain Sight"

Saint Nicholas The Real St. Nick

Will Atheists in China Starve Due to No Fish to Eat?

A Thirteen State Solution for the Holy Land?

US Sends new Missle to a Pacific ally, angering China and Russia Moscow and Peoking

DeaTh noTice ... Freerepublic --- lasT Monday JR died

"‘We Are Not the Crazy Ones’: AOC Protests Too Much"

"Rep. Comer to Newsmax: No Evidence Biden Approved Autopen Use"

"Donald Trump Has Broken the Progressive Ratchet"

"America Must Slash Red Tape to Make Nuclear Power Great Again!!"

"Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded"

Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR!

British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames

"Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy

Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA

What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe.

"The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent"

CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino)

Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting!

POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25

2026 in Bible Prophecy

2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat

🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025

Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong

England is on the Brink of Civil War!

Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH

IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting

The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back

Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots

Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk

She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible

Muslim College Student DUMBFOUNDED as Charlie Kirk Lists The Facts About Hamas

Charlie Kirk EVISCERATES Black Students After They OPENLY Support “Anti-White Racism” HEATED DEBATE

"Trump Rips U.N. as Useless During General Assembly Address: ‘Empty Words’"

Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee

Charlie Kirk Takes on 3 Professors & a Teacher

British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair

The 2 Billion View Video: Charlie Kirk's Most Viewed Clips of 2024

Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization.

The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom


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: 1393
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