Free speech or bad example?

[FWiedner]

Free speech or bad example?

'Fight crime' plate on car at school has some parents fuming

By CHRISTINE PHELAN, Sun Staff

LOWELL -- An employee's car parked at Abraham Lincoln Elementary School lot has sparked fury among some parents ushering their children inside the school each morning.
The car -- a red, late-model Ford Mustang with a novelty plate on its front end reading "Fight crime, shoot first" -- irritated one parent so much that she complained to her son's pre-kindergarten teacher. The parent, who asked to remain anonymous, also took the issue up with school Principal Sandra Dunning earlier this week, as well as Superintendent of Schools Karla Brooks Baehr.

"Being a member of the staff, well, you have to be an example to the kids," the mother insisted. "You don't just do whatever."

"I can listen to parents and listen to their concerns," Dunning said. "But we do live in America. That's part of our democracy, free speech."  

The parent, however, says the school's responsibility to provide positive role models to children supersedes the right to free speech, and that the offending license plate is a breech of the public trust placed in school employees. (Boldface added - FW)

"I don't think it's just a question of freedom of speech," the mother said, noting that while her son is still learning to read, the school's older students have full reading ability. "You don't leave it for the kids to see every day."

The First Amendment of the Constitution, which protects freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition and was added in 1791, stipulates that Congress shall not "(abridge) the freedom of speech."

According to Taylor Flynn, a Northeastern University professor and expert in Constitutional law, the school employee with the plate might actually find favor if the case found its way into court, particularly because, in her view, the evidence that students' education is being disrupted by the plate is on the lean side.

"However, I think there is a fairly strong possibility that a court would find that the staff person's First Amendment rights are being violated if the employee feels (directly or indirectly) coerced into covering the plate or is doing so over her objection."

Principal Dunning, who admitted she was "a little surprised" by the plate, initially echoed Flynn's concerns, saying that such a message might be considered inappropriate if it entered the building. But outside? Dunning said that's a different matter entirely.

"If anything disrupts the educational process, we do have the right to ask staff and teachers to maintain a code of conduct," she said. "What is parked in a lot or on a street is a different matter, however. Whatever happens in the building we have control over."

"I think it's inappropriate," she said. "I think we all take responsibility to model appropriate language and behavior. Yes, they see all sorts of things on TV, in ads, that lots of people would find inappropriate as a model for a 5- or 6-year-old. But having (the license plate) there in the lot suggests we condone it."

The solution? Dunning and Baehr plan to mandate that the staff member somehow cover the plate upon arrival each morning, possibly with magnets and a cloth. The plate will be covered by the first day of school after February break, Feb. 28, Behr said.

"I expect cooperation on the part of the staff members to cover it up or obscure it in some way," Baehr said.

And when the staff member is not on school property -- and by that, Baehr means either in the building or in the parking lot -- "she's free to do as she pleases."

The parent who initially complained said she was happy with that solution, though put off that "going public" with the story was the route to compromise.

"I'm aggravated because they only did something when I said I was going to talk to The Sun," the mother said. "I feel that I had to go outside the school to solve a little problem, because this could have been solved within the school."


http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:59ydyHcdYcsJ:www.lowellsun.com/Stories/0,1413,105%25257E4746%25257E2721094,00.html+%22%27Fight+crime%27+plate%22&hl=en


*Note:  This woman is "aggravated' because she had to intimidate an employer into harrassing an American citizen to give up their right to express a harmless opinion.  She's concerned that her children will get the "wrong message".  But what message is she sending?  That political correctness is more important than any silly old right?

[Mikey]

Will someone please horsewhip that woman.  Mikey.

[fe352v8]

I just came back from checking out the teachers parking lot at my kid's school, and while I did not find any novelty plates that would send the wrong message, I spotted several bumper stickers that did.

"JUST SAY NO" this can only incite rebellion and obviously sends the wrong message to our young people.

"D.A.R.E." this will no doubt encourage many kids to take un-needed risks, leading to possible injury.

For some reason the principal is un-willing to take action.

life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[Greysky]

A former neighbor, an elderly gentleman (I was much younger then.) informed me that after the drive-in style roof at a local burger joint collapsed during a wind storm, he and his wife drove onto the property with a bumper plate his son-in-law had given to him which stated, THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT! This humorous expression so incited a local cop that he ordered my neighbor to turn his car around because he thought the bumper plate was offensive.

My kindly neighbor complied with this ridiculous command. Would you?

[Sheila]

Nobody forced that  woman to read that plate,  and that teacher has every right to have that on her own car.

[Sheila]

Will someone please horsewhip that woman.  Mikey.

You horsewhip her, and I'll  take a branding iron to her butt.

[Don Fischer]

I think that many thing's really don't need to be said. That license plate is a good example. The problem is that many are undecided and their opinion is based on what they see, and what do they see here, "shoot first". I'm all for freedom of speech but sometime's the thing's we say hurt us more than the thing's we don't.

Somewhere in this site I found a post by a guy claiming to be a marine, or maybe ex-marine, and he was bragging about getting drunk and blasting his initials into a bridge with an M-16 form a jeep moving 40 MPH.
Now even most of us would be upset by that. The point being, we really need to think about what we publicly say, even on bumper sticker's.

I understand the above bumper sticker and where the feeling come's from, but I think it's one of those thing's that doesn't need saying, especially on a bumper sticker. Is anyone really suprized at the reaction it got?

[Don Fischer]

Just one more thought, one guy replied, "somebody horsewhip that woman". Then the next say's, "you horse whip her, I'll take the branding iron to her butt". Whow! Maybe what we should do is attempt to edcuate her. Now I know that's a lost cause for many of them, but not for all. The worst thing we can do is throw more fuel on their fire. That's as bad as loading the bad guy's gun so he can shoot your family!

I know where you guy's are coming from aand you don't mean it literally, but word's are word's and to many people are willing to corrupt their meaning to use them against us.

[FWiedner]

So Don, it sounds like it's your opinion that if a person has an opinion that might be in the least controversial, they should keep it to themselves.  They should be very, very quiet, because someone might be listening.

Maybe the license frame should have said:  "Why fight crime?  Just grovel like the b*tch you are."  (Not you)

Sorry, I'm not buying into the hurtful speech thing.  Free men shouldn't bend over for such politically correct nonsense.

.

[Don Fischer]

Naw, that's not what I mean at all. But there's a lot of different way's of saying thing's without offending the undecided. I'm not sure how it should be said but, "fight crime, shoot first" seem's a bit hard core even to me.

Now I somehow got a reputation here that I'm not to be messed with because I carry a gun. Well I didn't go out and wave it at everybody it just happen's that I do and people know it. I would be a prime canidate for the deal in Arizona, and not overly forgiving of illegal's.

OK, how about this, "fight crime, get a concealed weapon's permit", or something like that. As far as controversial opinion's go, I've got more than my share and don't mind saying them. But usually I try to find a way without the "in your face stuff". We won't make much headway with the undecided that way, and the majority I believe to be undecided.

[FWiedner]

Don;

I understand what you're saying.  People need to be comfortable with ideas to be open to them.  I think that significant gains in comfort might be acheived if they'd just pull their heads out of their colonic output portals.

You think it "sounds scary".  The politically correct thing to do would be to say something else.  The problem with saying something else is that when you do, that is exactly what you do.

I take the meaning of the statement on the plate to mean something different than you do, I think.  Or..., maybe not.  You probably get the same thing out of it that I do.

I was thinking that the statement was a spin on Bill Jordan's famous treatise "No second place winner".

Vis-a-vis, there's no second place in a gun fight; Fight crime, don't come in second place in a gun fight; Fight crime, Defend yourself, and fast; Fight crime, shoot first...

That's what it says to me, or at least describes my muddled train of thought.

I cannot relate to the school of thought wherein anytime shooting is mentioned it is automatically equated with evil and bad guys or something being done that is wrong.

I equally cannot relate to the school of thought that is so easily offended that even the suggestion of direct and aggressive action in an act of self defense is considered bad, wrong, ill-advised, or outside the law.

If people are so easily offended that the mere suggestion that they should act to protect their own life causes them to take action attempt to silence anyone who would make such a statement, then it's my opinion that such frightening statements to that effect should be made more frequently, and louder.

Let them get used to it.

 

[Don Fischer]

Bill Jordans book is titled "No Second Place Winner", We both know what that mean's. It say's what you suggest but does it without an "in your face" attitude. If he had called it "Don't Come Out Second in a Gun Fight', which I would agree is what he meant, Like it or not, it's offensive. It is not necessary to call dodo, s##t, to get people to understand what your talking about.

Most people in my experience, feel you don't have to get in their face to get your point across. The really irksome one's are the anti's, that really don't care what you have to say, they have their own agenda, and it isn't your's. When we say something like "fight crime, shoot first", they in turn use it to show the undecided what uneducated sloth's we are. And again, I believe that the majority of non-shooters and hunter's are really undecided and they are the one's needed to be reached. We don't do that by saying "shoot first".

I think that there is a lot more of us than there is them, I would prefer to let them play the thug than us. Image is important and we should maintain as good of one as we can. Every day someone does something that tarnish's our image, sometime's it's one of us.

I like to think that we make more inroad's by no playing the game their way. Tom Selleck walked out on Rosie rather than be displayed some kind of thug. He could have stayed and slugged it out with her, that's just what she wanted. She hoped she was singing to the choir and to embarrass a famous gun right's advocate, instead he didn't play her game and lost!

I also don't think that the mention of a shooting should be equated with evil or something wrong, but you and I and every other gun owner in this country have some responsibility not to lower ourselves to the tactic's of the anti's; those we deplore. They deal in fear, they deal in "in your face". We need to be above that, we are above that.

[Don Fischer]

I said above " he didn't play her game and lost". I ment that SHE lost.

[FWiedner]

I agree with your approach to a large degree.

While that civilized, "above it all" approach does help in the image department, I think that it also contributes to many of the problems that we, as gun-owners are encountering.

For example, one very popular and civil argument often pulled out of the hat is "child safety".  "Do it for the children".  It's obvious that children can't take care of themselves.  The thrust is that it is necessary to infringe on my rights because children don't know any better.

I have an idea:  Make their parents take care of them.  The truth is that I don't care about those kids.  I care about my kids.  If Joe Blow is not smart enough to teach his kids what they need to know to survive or to protect them until they mature, then I say let nature take it's course.  I'll teach my kids what they need to know and shelter them until they are bigger and meaner and smarter than me.  The result, Joe's stupid kids bite dirt, my kids suvive and thrive, aka survival of the species (and my gene strain), Darwin wins again.

Another flavor of that same civil argument is the hue and cry for "reasonable restrictions" on firearms.  Hey, everyone wants to be reasonable, right?  I mean, it's part of being civilized.  But whose version of reasonable do we get to use when the rubber hits the road?

I own firearms for recreation, survival, and protection.  Who other than myself has the right to say that none of those are good enough reasons for me to own a .50BMG rifle?  News for ya...NO ONE.  I have a right to be armed as I see fit, with any configuration of any arm that might possibly used for any purpose my any modern military or police organization in the world.  The specific intent of the Second Amendment is to acknowledge this right in the foundation of the law of this nation.

A thief who breaks into your house to steal your stuff can do it without killing you, raping your wife, or harming your children.  He's being reasonable.  No reason to harm someone over property if there's no survival imperative.  But the fact remains, he's taking your stuff.  Stuff you've shed blood and sweat for, stuff that maybe your Mom or Dad, and maybe your Grandpap and further down the line sacrificed to make sure you had.

Are you going to let him carry off your property and your heritage, just because he was reasonable, because he was for the most part civil and didn't hurt anyone?

It all started by opening the door and letting this reasonable fellow come into the house.  By attempting to cooperate, and then allowing him to get the advantage.

My belongings and my rights are my property and my heritage.  I believe that anyone who wants to deprive me of either one also wants a heart-felt punch in the nose, and then a bit more, depending on their persistence.

Sorry I got off onto a metaphoric rant there, but I'm thinking you can get my point.

I guess I go "shields up" pretty quick on such subjects.

I look at my rights kinda the same way I look at my toes, step on them and I WILL make you back-up a step or two.

 :-)

[Don Fischer]

I think we're both getting on the same page here. I started teaching my kid's about gun's, shooting and reloading when they were old enough to walk. I do not lock up my gun's to keep the grandkids out, I teach them about them, if some bad guy break's into my house in his thief mode, he will leave in a body bag.

I know very well that we can't reach the radical anti's, I don't even try! But I do with the undecided and when I remain calm and rational, so do they. When it's done I may not have convinced them of my view's, but I haven't turned them off either, so the door to them is still open. It's not important that everyone share our view's, but it is important that they respect us our's. To do that, we need to respect their's. And the radical's, on both side's of this issue will do as all radical's do, regardless of who's side their on. They will create dissention and that solve's no problem's.

Enjoy this forum, keep it up,
Don

[MATLOCK12C]

The point is some people have nothing better to do than look for something to complain about.  :evil:  Some of these folks have a real concern, :-)   but most are just "goofy whack job's" at best.  
When you put the complaint into context, common sense will settle most of it. The problem is nowday's few people posess any,  :x  and these folks are the first to spout off about something and make a mountian out of a mole hill. :oops:

[Don Fischer]

It's not that few people have any common sense today, most do. The problem is that the squeaky hinge get's the oil. Those few that make a lot of noise have leader's make a ton of money exciting them. Refuse to play by their rule's, keep your cool. Never enter a war you can't win and fighting with the anti's is un-winable. Reach out to the undecided.

[MATLOCK12C]

6/10 TIMES  the so called ANTI-THIS OR THAT is a uninformed MORON at best.
Now someone with an honest opinion that is willing to debate a subject you can deal with even if you agree to disagree.  
It is the closed minded drone who can only spout out there silly rubish for all to hear, even those who don't wanna hear the mess that I find most irritating! :evil:  :x  :x  :x
The fact is freedom of speach is a double edged sword, it cuts BOTH way's so ya just take the GOOD and bare the BAD.