That pesky bill of rights.

Let me ask the constitutional scholars here what was the point of stomping on the flag. Couldn't he just take it down, wad it up and put it in a drawer to prove his point? Why the stomping? Next thing you'll be telling me that a teacher in a sex ed class can expose him or herself to make to make a point. There are limits and the school establishes those limits.

Is that what you do when you whip out your "piece" to show your students they are safe.

Whether it was an honors class or not makes little difference.

Clearly you missed the comment section of the link. I would say that the comments I read were not written by liberty minded individuals. Originally Posted by fetishfreak

liberty minded individuals ARE conservatives..liberals are opposed to individual liberty as a group, where have you been?

Let me ask the constitutional scholars here what was the point of stomping on the flag. Couldn't he just take it down, wad it up and put it in a drawer to prove his point? Why the stomping? Next thing you'll be telling me that a teacher in a sex ed class can expose him or herself to make to make a point. There are limits and the school establishes those limits. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Stomping on the flag or just stepping on it makes little difference. Had he just put it in the drawer it may have had less effect, it may not have, I do not know the student body of the class enough to make that determination.

A teacher who exposes himself in a sex ed class is hardly and apples to apples comparison. But, since you brought it up, what is the manner of the exposure? Is there really that much of a difference between use of a live human subject and a photo or artistic rendition?

The human body should be considered to be a beautiful thing, not something to be ashamed of. What if an art class wanted to use a naked body for an art project? Would that be wrong?

A line should be drawn at a local level as too what would be acceptable. The school needs to make it clear. The school makes it clear to its teachers that exposing themselves to a classroom is not acceptable nor is it legal. Hence it is not a good argument.

Placing a flag on the floor and stepping on it, stomping on it, or burning it even is not illegal. If the school wants to prohibit it then it should do so and make that clear. There is no evidence that this was the case, hence he should not be fired. He broke no law and violated no known school rules.

Stomping on the flag or just stepping on it makes little difference. Had he just put it in the drawer it may have had less effect, it may not have, I do not know the student body of the class enough to make that determination.

A teacher who exposes himself in a sex ed class is hardly and apples to apples comparison. But, since you brought it up, what is the manner of the exposure? Is there really that much of a difference between use of a live human subject and a photo or artistic rendition?

The human body should be considered to be a beautiful thing, not something to be ashamed of. What if an art class wanted to use a naked body for an art project? Would that be wrong?

A line should be drawn at a local level as too what would be acceptable. The school needs to make it clear. The school makes it clear to its teachers that exposing themselves to a classroom is not acceptable nor is it legal. Hence it is not a good argument.

Placing a flag on the floor and stepping on it, stomping on it, or burning it even is not illegal. If the school wants to prohibit it then it should do so and make that clear. There is no evidence that this was the case, hence he should not be fired. He broke no law and violated no known school rules. Originally Posted by fetishfreak

Starting such a fire, such as you state, in a classroom is arson. Exposing one's self to minors as an instructor -- or as a model -- is a prosecutable criminal act. Using a minor as a nude model is a prosecutable criminal act. Those are not "school rules": they are laws. The intellectual latitude given to professors teaching in colleges is not shared by ordinary teachers in public school systems. There are two different standards. Public law requires elementary and secondary students to attend school until a given age; whereas, students "elect" to enroll in particular colleges and they "elect" to enroll in a particular professor’s class. Therein lays the difference.

Arson[1] is the crime of intentionally and maliciously setting fire to buildings, wildland areas,[2] cars[3][4] or other property with the intent to cause damage. It may be distinguished from other causes such as spontaneous combustion and natural wildfires. Arson often involves fires deliberately set to the property of another or to one's own property as to collect insurance compensation.[5]

If it was his own flag and the fire did not spread to any other property and was maintained controlled it would not be arson.

I never stated using a nude minor. That would be against the law. Once again what he did violated no laws.

Arson[1] is the crime of intentionally and maliciously setting fire to buildings, wildland areas,[2] cars[3][4] or other property with the intent to cause damage. It may be distinguished from other causes such as spontaneous combustion and natural wildfires. Arson often involves fires deliberately set to the property of another or to one's own property as to collect insurance compensation.[5]

If it was his own flag and the fire did not spread to any other property and was maintained controlled it would not be arson. Originally Posted by fetishfreak

Try burning a flag -- or a dirty t-shirt -- in an ordinary public school classroom filled with minors and see what you get charged with!

Placing a flag on the floor and stepping on it, stomping on it,XXXXXXXXXX is not illegal. If the school wants to prohibit it then it should do so and make that clear. There is no evidence that this was the case, hence he should not be fired. He broke no law and violated no known school rules. Originally Posted by fetishfreak

Fine, he may have been charged with a crime in that case. I strike it from my statement. The rest can still stand on its own.

Lets not. We are skirting around one of the nuclear topics.

Disrepecting the flag can take all sort of iterations but I believe that some can not or will not be able to tell the difference. To make the point lets go back to the exposure in class. Sounds simple but a good point was made about art class. However, it is expected in art class if they are drawing the human form. It would be too much if they were doing a still life (a nude woman holding two large melons, draw the melons). What about age? If the class was early teens, late teens, or legal adults it should make a great deal of difference. The point is that this particular act was not expected in this class and don't the students have the power to express themselves? Kind of like the joke where a college professor is berating his students (again) about a belief in God. He stands on his podium in front of the class and demands that God prove his existence by knocking the professor off the podium in front of the entire class. One short haired young man walks up to the podium and knocks the professor on his ass. The young man tells the professor that God was busy so he sent a marine. Apparently some students didn't like what the teacher did. Are their beliefs any less important?

Clearly I failed to make my point.

I respect this teacher's freedom of speech.

I served for over 15 years in the Navy. I believe that the flag is a symbol of what made this country great. It is only a symbol though, liberty is what made this country great. Firing a teacher for using his first amendment right of free speech to provoke discourse of ideas is exactly what we need form our teachers.

This was an honors class, the students in this class deserve the right to be able to work above the fray of petty attempts to indoctrinate children into a politically correct point of view. Originally Posted by fetishfreak

Have you ever actually READ the First Amendment?? Did you happen to notice the words "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW" that begins the First Amendment?

Can you show me where Congress involved itself in this matter? Can you show me where any form of law enforcement became involved in this situation? Was the teacher arrested, detained, or charged with a crime?

No.

This is not a First Amendment issue. You are free to say whatever you want to say without fear of government harassment or interference. That is your First Amendment protection. The First Amendment does NOT protect you from being fired by your employer, nor does it protect you from public outrage stemming from something you say. If the teacher wants to stomp on the flag, let him do so at home. If he wants to stomp on it at school, while receiving a salary paid for by the taxpayers, the school has every right to fire him.

Have you ever actually READ the First Amendment?? Did you happen to notice the words "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW" that begins the First Amendment?

Can you show me where Congress involved itself in this matter? Can you show me where any form of law enforcement became involved in this situation? Was the teacher arrested, detained, or charged with a crime?

No.

This is not a First Amendment issue. You are free to say whatever you want to say without fear of government harassment or interference. That is your First Amendment protection. The First Amendment does NOT protect you from being fired by your employer, nor does it protect you from public outrage stemming from something you say. If the teacher wants to stomp on the flag, let him do so at home. If he wants to stomp on it at school, while receiving a salary paid for by the taxpayers, the school has every right to fire him. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Perhaps reading a little further would have allowed you to see that I have already made this point. I know that he can be fired for this. I am saying why should he be fired?

You are correct. He does risk being fired, my point is why fire a teacher who was obviously getting through to the students.

This issue came to light because a father overheard his daughter talking about it to a friend. She didn't go to him to complain. The teacher got this particular student to talk about a real concrete grown up issue outside of the classroom. Sure he risked being fired, but the system would lose a good teacher.

Think back to the teachers you had in high school, do you remember the ones that just followed a textbook or do you remember the ones that inspired you to think? Originally Posted by fetishfreak

Have you ever actually READ the First Amendment?? Did you happen to notice the words "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW" that begins the First Amendment?

Can you show me where Congress involved itself in this matter? Can you show me where any form of law enforcement became involved in this situation? Was the teacher arrested, detained, or charged with a crime?

No.

This is not a First Amendment issue. You are free to say whatever you want to say without fear of government harassment or interference. That is your First Amendment protection. The First Amendment does NOT protect you from being fired by your employer, nor does it protect you from public outrage stemming from something you say. If the teacher wants to stomp on the flag, let him do so at home. If he wants to stomp on it at school, while receiving a salary paid for by the taxpayers, the school has every right to fire him. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

+1