Teen Sues Over Confederate Flag Dress

[Questioninggeller]

LEXINGTON, Ky. - A teenager is suing her school district for barring her from the prom last spring because she was wearing a dress styled as a large Confederate battle flag.

The lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court claims the Greenup County district and administrators violated Jacqueline Duty's First Amendment right to free speech and her right to celebrate her heritage at predominantly white Russell High School's prom May 1. She also is suing for defamation, false imprisonment and assault.

"Her only dance for her senior prom was on the sidewalk to a song playing on the radio," said her lawyer, Earl-Ray Neal.

Duty, 19, is seeking actual and punitive damages in excess of $50,000.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041222/ap_on_re_us/confederate_prom_dress

Barring some Reneck from the prom is about as stupid as suing the government for $50,00+ for not being allowed to wear a dress.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041222/ap_on_re_us/confederate_prom_dress

Barring some Reneck from the prom is about as stupid as suing the government for $50,00+ for not being allowed to wear a dress. Worthy target of Bush's tort reform.

[KelvinG]

It says in the article she spent four years making the dress. Too bad at least once in those four years she didn't try and find out if she would actually be allowed to wear it.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by KelvinG
It says in the article she spent four years making the dress. Too bad at least once in those four years she didn't try and find out if she would actually be allowed to wear it.

If she did that, she wouldn't have this potential payday.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
If she did that, she wouldn't have this potential payday.

Yes, I'm sure this is all a bit more contrived than the poor, innocent flag girl is making it out to be!

[Ladewig]

She tried to fight the system. The system beat her down. Doesn't that pretty much sum up the whole "Confederate heritage" thing? What's she bellyaching about? She got the same thing her grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-pappy got.

[Bob Klase]

She tried to fight the system. The system beat her down.

The system hasn't even cranked up yet. If she loses her lawsuit then "the system beat her down" might be accurate.

If your statement was correct then we could also say that the system has beaten down those opposed to teaching Intelligent Design in PA.

[Ed]

Wonder if the ACLU will represent her.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Bob Klase
The system hasn't even cranked up yet. If she loses her lawsuit then "the system beat her down" might be accurate.

If your statement was correct then we could also say that the system has beaten down those opposed to teaching Intelligent Design in PA.


I wasn't referring to the legal system per se. I was pointing out the irony in that in the 1860's a bunch of Southerns decided to display the "Stars and Bars" and then people with guns came in and put a stop to it; and then again in 2004, this student tried displaying the flag and armed folks walked her out to a police car.

It probably would have been more accurate if I had said, the government or even "the Man."

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by KelvinG
It says in the article she spent four years making the dress. Too bad at least once in those four years she didn't try and find out if she would actually be allowed to wear it.

Hmmm
You don't think that she was trying to make a point?

Edit BTW:
"Intelligent Design" Instruction Is Challenged
The ACLU and coalition group filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of 11 parents in Pennsylvania who say that presenting "intelligent design" in public school science classrooms violates their religious liberty.

I'm trying to ascertain the disposition of this particular case and whether it was raised .
Pictures at 11.

[Ranb]

Originally posted by KelvinG
It says in the article she spent four years making the dress. Too bad at least once in those four years she didn't try and find out if she would actually be allowed to wear it.


From the link; Duty, now a college student, said school officials told her before the prom not to wear the dress, but she didn't have another one and decided to see if administrators would change their minds.

She is either stupid, or trying to test the system. Since she made it to college, and was wearing a symbol of a bygone, racist, slaveholding era, I would have to say she is a clown who tested the waters and got all wet.

Ranb

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Ranb
From the link; Duty, now a college student, said school officials told her before the prom not to wear the dress, but she didn't have another one and decided to see if administrators would change their minds.

She is either stupid, or trying to test the system. Since she made it to college, and was wearing a symbol of a bygone, racist, slaveholding era, I would have to say she is a clown who tested the waters and got all wet.

Ranb

It must be wonderful to live in a free country where you are free to do what everyone approves of.

[TragicMonkey]

I would like to see a photo. I have trouble imagining how anyone would good in a dress of orange and blue, with white stars.

Kentucky? I didn't think they were even in the Confederacy. Perhaps this girl would have met with a different reception to her dress in Tennessee or Alabama.

In Georgia, she would have run the risk of that embarrassment occasioned when two women arrive wearing identical dresses.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Nikk
It must be wonderful to live in a free country where you are free to do what everyone approves of.

The fact is that freedom of speech is useless if it only defends popular ideas.

Oct. 4 issue - When Tim Gies was a sophomore at Michigan's Bay City Central High School, the United States was preparing to go to war in Iraq, and Gies became so passionate about politics that he began wearing his views on his sleeve—literally. He started producing his own line of antiwar, anti-Bush apparel by painting symbols and slogans onto T shirts and sweat shirts. When school administrators noticed, they weren't pleased and told him many times to remove his tees. Gies refused, and was repeatedly suspended for weeks at a time. "I just wore the shirts and took the punishments," recalls Gies, now 17. When the administrators threatened Gies with expulsion earlier this year, Gies called the local ACLU—which notified the school that it was infringing on its student's First Amendment rights.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6098629/site/newsweek


It really dosen't matter if she "knew" that the dress would be a non-starter or not. It has no bearing whether it took 5 days or 5 years to make. It has no bearing whatsoever whether she is educated or not.

It troubles me that the posts on this topic clearly support the curtailment of this person's rights since, presumably, the information is offensive. That is hypocracy of the highest order. Speech is speech. I am ashamed of some of you.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Ed

It troubles me that the posts on this topic clearly support the curtailment of this person's rights since, presumably, the information is offensive. That is hypocracy of the highest order. Speech is speech. I am ashamed of some of you.

I notice, Ed, you have yet to comment on the thread regarding the witch-hunting of college professors who aren't conservative Christians.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Ed
It troubles me that the posts on this topic clearly support the curtailment of this person's rights since, presumably, the information is offensive. That is hypocracy of the highest order. Speech is speech. I am ashamed of some of you.

I couldn't care less if she showed up in a dress made from a Nazi flag. I just think she was foolish if she didn't expect a reaction; so either she's a fool for being surprised, or she set out deliberately to make a point, a fuss, a fortune, or all three at once.

At least the fuss didn't arise til after the prom--it might have wrecked the event for everyone. Can you imagine news crews and pundits converging on your prom? If proms these days are anything like mine was, they'd be getting kids in serious trouble. "Young man, I was watching Fox News, and I saw you in the background. What were you doing? Never mind, I'm sure I don't want to know. Whatever it was, it was definitely a sin, and likely a criminal offense! And what's worse, that wasn't even your date you were doing it with!"

[Ed]

Originally posted by Cleon
I notice, Ed, you have yet to comment on the thread regarding the witch-hunting of college professors who aren't conservative Christians.

Whoa! Witches, a personal favorite subject of mine.

I am off.......

[Tmy]

Its a school function. You dont have freedom of speech in schools or school activities.

Why those bastards wouldnt allow me to show up drunk at the prom! Where was the ACLU then?!?!?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tmy
Its a school function. You dont have freedom of speech in schools or school activities.

Ummm....no.

Why those bastards wouldnt allow me to show up drunk at the prom! Where was the ACLU then?!?!?

You DID show up and get in and you were very, very drunk. Concintrate, think back:)

[Tmy]

Ummmmmmmm YES! I may have mispoke a little. You dont have THE SAME freedom of speech in school as you do in the public square. The school has a right to control the students to maintain the learning environment. That spills over to school events too. So Freedom of SPeeck can be muted by the school. Just like they can mess with the school papers freedom of press.

[Psi Baba]

Why is that people who run schools do not know how to teach lessons. They always take the action that is most likely to backfire rather than achieve the desired effect. They should have just let her into the prom and let everyone laugh at her. Who would she sue then? "They all laughed at my beautiful dress. They ruined the prom for me." Uh huh. Quite a different lesson would have been learned than the one she's learning now.

[hgc]

She should win her case. But as for damages, $1.

[TragicMonkey]

I'd mind a lot less had the girl used any of the three actual national flags of the Confederacy. The first of which continues to fly in quite a few places, without objection, because the vast majority of the public, both Southern and otherwise, don't know what it is!

http://www.confederateflags.org/

What's commonly thought of as the "Confederate flag" was actually a battle standard, and formed a part of two of the three national flags.

It's amusing that people feel so strongly about their "heritage".....while they wouldn't recognize their real heritage if it bit them in their buttocks.

[Tmy]

Yeah, heritage of slavery and traitors to the United States. Whatd her date wear? An American Taliban tuxeudo?

Every school has a dress code, and it extends to school functions too. Just like schools banning gang colors. Is that an outragrous free speech violation?

[LostAngeles]

I do know that at least when I was in school, the Fourth Amendment did not apply to students and I also believe that was a SCOTUS decision. I believe whether or not the First did was in question and milage varied.

My sole comment on this was in response to her finding out if the dress would be allowed or not. It stemmed from my cynicism when it comes to certain legal challenges.

Frankly, I've been tempted to apply for both Stormfront's scholarship and for a scholarship for black students or students with a black parent just for the fun of it.

(Mom's white, Dad's black and Korean (and possibly Cherokee). My dad appears black to the undiscerning eye*.)

I don't because I don't want the hassle and it's probably not worth it. But yeah, I can understand the desire to uh, challenge the system.

In the meantime, I'm going to go look up my first paragraph and get back to y'all. Consider it a placeholder.

[Checkmite]

"Proud of her heritage", indeed. She's probably a second-generation decendant of European WWII immigrants, like the majority of rebel-flag-bearing-southern-heritage-lovers I'm met.

[LostAngeles]

Mileage does in fact vary with regards to students and the First Amendment.

According to the ACLU: (http://archive.aclu.org/students/slfree.html)

...
DO I HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPRESS MY OPINIONS AND BELIEFS IN SCHOOL?
Yes. In 1969 in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District the Supreme Court held that students in public schools – which are run by the government – do not leave their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate. This means that you can express your opinions orally and in writing – in leaflets or on buttons, armbands or T-shirts.

You have a right to express your opinions as long as you do so in a way that doesn't "materially and substantially" disrupt classes or other school activities. If you hold a protest on the school steps and block the entrance to the building, school officials can stop you. They can probably also stop you from using language that they think is "vulgar or indecent," so watch out for the dirty words, OK?

Also, school officials may not censor only one side of a controversy. If they permit an article in the official school paper that says that premarital sex is bad, they may not censor an article that says premarital sex is good.
...

(Emphasis mine.)

So while her school may have been predominantately white, that may have caused a disruption in the school activity. Hell, it could have caused a disruption if the school was 100% white.

I'm going to sort of digress here, so either just skip down to my correction on students and the Fourth Amendment, skip it, or bear with me.

There's two things about this that I'd like to comment on. Firstly is that I do not believe in coddling. Some of us are not comfortable with the idea that there is racism, that there has been racism, that people have killed and hurt others over skin color and faith, that some people just see thing from a different/"wrong" perspective. That doesn't mean we hide from it. You don't gloss over the genocides in Serbia and Rwanda, The Killing Fields, Auschwitz, the World Trade Center attacks, the Japanese internment camps, the Bataan Death March, P.O.W.s, nuclear warfare, the racial violence that's occured in this country and the world, the abortion debate, the religion debate, or any other "uncomfortable" subject.

It's called suck it the hell up and face it. If you can face it, you can understand it. If you can understand it, then maybe, just maybe, you can come to terms with it and find ways for the uncomfortable things to not happen anymore.

Just because I think Bush is a lousy president who isn't going to help this country in the ways I'd like to see it be done, doesn't mean I'm going to squeeze my eyes shut, stick fingers in my ears and go "La-La-La-La-La-La." Much in the same way people who like Bush and think he's going to do great things for this country don't do the same when encountered by people with my opinions.

...Ok, most of us... some of us...

...

You get the drift. We can't say, "NOOOO! NOT OUR RACIST PAST! RUN AWAY!" anymore than we can go "AHH! SOMEONE WHO SEES THINGS DIFFERENTLY! RUN AWAY!"

Which leads into my second comment. I'm going to make a horror movie in which a bunch of white people who are stricken with the horror and guilt of having been born white and middle class are confronted with the minority poor and the Spector of Racism.

Anecdote time.

Once upon a time, in a mall bookstore worked my stupid ex (who hated it when I didn't agree with him 100% and coddle his precious feelings) and his stupid co-workers. He had just helped an obnoxious black family and turned to a coworker and said, "I can't believe that. They..." to which she emphatically responded, "Don't say 'they!' Don't say 'they!'"

To which when I heard the story, uttered, "So what third person plural pronoun subject did you two 'writers' agree on to use then?" I never got an answer to that but I've always found it hilarious to watch white people squirm at the barest hint of racism.

Yet no one reacts when I get told to "go back to my country." Funny that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(As far as the Fourth goes, the ACLU states that SCOTUS has ruled that police can search a student sans warrant if there's cherry pie. I mean, reasonable cause. You have your Miranda rights, but in some states, lockers are school property and searchable, while others require reasonable suspicion. So I was half-right-ish.)

[crimresearch]

The landmark decision is New Jersey v TLO , and it applies to the US as a whole.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by crimresearch
The landmark decision is New Jersey v TLO , and it applies to the US as a whole.

For searches of individual students, yes. The matter of the lockers is on a state by state basis.

See here. (http://archive.aclu.org/students/slprivacy.html)

[TillEulenspiegel]

Huh, Last year my daughter went to a "redneck" H.S. There were white bigots who wore a Confederate flag caps and flags on their car antennas and their were black bigots who wore the obligatory Bob Marley t-shirt with the African red,green and black colors and pants around their knees.

Then there was my daughter's friend. The poor schlub was as genteel a soul as You could meet. He was vehemently anti-raciest,anti-sexist,anti-establishment just about a clear and clever a mind the one in these times could care for.

He was suspended because he had a red circle A on his backpack.For those unaware that is a symbol of an anarchist. My daughter called me from the school and was upset ( Bright kid) because she and others felt that the symbol was only offensive to the teacher who marched the kid down to the Principles office.

I called the ACLU in Miami and talked to a lawyer. The gist of the conversation is that the rules governing student behavior were so broad that the case met the standard of "Acceptable behavior" and " disruption of the classroom". I.E there was nothing they could do.

So the sad fact is that regardless that the law says that you don't leave your 1st amendment rights at the door of the school....You in fact do.

[crimresearch]

No state has the right to grant a citizen LESS rights than they are guaranteed under the Constitution, and USSC rulings on what is constitutional.

The states can adopt differing policies as long as they give their citizens *more* protections, such as extending the expectation of privacy to a locker that is on school property... but the basic question as to whether schools can search students is already covered.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by crimresearch
No state has the right to grant a citizen LESS rights than they are guaranteed under the Constitution, and USSC rulings on what is constitutional.

The states can adopt differing policies as long as they give their citizens *more* protections, such as extending the expectation of privacy to a locker that is on school property... but the basic question as to whether schools can search students is already covered.

And they apparently do it anyway, with regards to the lockers. I remember our lockers being searched in a failed drug sweep. (How the hell it failed, I have no idea.) There was an uproar in my U.S. History class as it was taking place. The teacher explained that the lockers were school property and thusly the school could give permission for them to be searched. They couldn't open our bags or search our pockets unless the drug sniffing dogs they brought smelt something.

Still, none of us liked it.

It's a law to protect our good little children from the no good kids that our schools are full of.

So yes, it is b.s.

[TillEulenspiegel]

One would think that is the case Crime, fact being that are special classes of law regarding juveniles , well maybe not laws but restrictions of activity.
Juveniles are not affected by the freedoms you and I consider normal. The way this application of law is addressed is almost a " reduced capacity" so that de-facto there is a different view of the Law in governing children. Is it wise, under certain circumstances yes, in an overall view ..prahaps not.

[hgc]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
...

So the sad fact is that regardless that the law says that you don't leave your 1st amendment rights at the door of the school....You in fact do. Yes, of course you do. A school has a rightful interest in controlling speech. The problem is when the rule is overly broad and then applied in a capricious, unfair and unpredictable manner.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
He was suspended because he had a red circle A on his backpack.For those unaware that is a symbol of an anarchist. My daughter called me from the school and was upset ( Bright kid) because she and others felt that the symbol was only offensive to the teacher who marched the kid down to the Principles office.


I didn't know schools saw anarchy as being hateful, disruptive behavior. That's pretty bad, but is there more to the story why they would single him out?


PS. I guess they don't read Proudhon in that school.

[gnome]

I think it would indeed have been smarter to see the game she was playing and do nothing at all, allow her to show up. Sometimes the best cure for undesirable speech is for it to be exposed to more free speech.

[Regnad Kcin]

My guess is that she intentionally designed a dress so unattractive as to provoke her boyfriend to want to help remove it as soon as they could get away from the prom.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Gnome I couldn't agree with You more. I have always said that the pervasive light of public scrutiny is the best antiseptic of this excessive kind of filth. (not the dress but the sentiments behind it...he said with a nod and a wink)

Questioninggeller

There was " more to the story" as You suspected. The student was told that he could not ware the particular item to school. He wore it anyway. The object lesson was grounded in the context of free speech. He equated ( wrongly unfortunately) that the right to express political sentiment should be inclusive as Holm's stated.The regulations as I have stated supersede the right of free speech in cases that harm the "learning environment". The warm fuzzy feeling comes from the fact that many students wore circle As the next day and were also suspended. Thank You Jesus and Gandhi and MLK.

I do not know the disposition of that particular case but looking at the current political reality , I can guess.

[Dorian Gray]

1) If a person is wearing an article of clothing made from or resembling a flag, and you burn it - is it a crime?

2) Why does this country tolerate the overt display of a flag representing a secessionist group of states that tried to rebel against us? We wouldn't tolerate it in a country whose regime we had just changed.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

2) Why does this country tolerate the overt display of a flag representing a secessionist group of states that tried to rebel against us? We wouldn't tolerate it in a country whose regime we had just changed.

Dorian, That's the point of the issue. As O.W.Holms stated it is the speech we hate that needs protection. It's easy to go along with fluff issues. Defending the KKK or Nazis or Black Panthers right to speak or demonstrate is the crucial test of our republics guarantees of freedom of speech. Nothing else will do.

[rockoon]

It hasn't even really been demonstrated that this girl is racist. The assumption seems to be that the flag itself is racist so therefore the girl is racist for wanting to wear a dress that resembles it. I not only find fault with the logic but also with the starting premise.

[Ed]

Originally posted by rockoon
It hasn't even really been demonstrated that this girl is racist. The assumption seems to be that the flag itself is racist so therefore the girl is racist for wanting to wear a dress that resembles it. I not only find fault with the logic but also with the starting premise.

I recall that the Black Panther Party campaigned for George Wallace on my college campus, wore buttons with his picture and everything.

[ssibal]

She should have been deported, along with all the other pro confederate scum still lingering around.

[crimresearch]

Deported? She's already IN Kentucky!

;)

[Dorian Gray]

Till, you're missing the point. I don't care if hate groups use the flag. I am talking about representing secessionist or "insurgent" states willingly. Would we allow Iraqis to display pictures of Saddam everywhere, or Afghanistan some Taliban flag?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
And they apparently do it anyway, with regards to the lockers. I remember our lockers being searched in a failed drug sweep. (How the hell it failed, I have no idea.) There was an uproar in my U.S. History class as it was taking place. The teacher explained that the lockers were school property and thusly the school could give permission for them to be searched...

Still, none of us liked it.

In my freshman year, I probably missed out on an opportunity to make a lot of friends, by not joining in the whining about a school locker search which took place that year. The "school property" reason was explained to us, and I agreed with it - still do, in fact. It seemed pretty cut and dried to me - just because the school gives you the combination for a few months, it does not make the locker some sort of sovereign territory. After all, the school still holds the combination, too - and the school changes said combination every year. Remember the "cubby holes" in kindergarten? Lockers are nothing but cubby holes with hinged covers.