Yes, so the Adminustration/Chancellor commented both before and after the veto.
The “administration” generic comment seems to have been written as the veto was in process, but likely it was a fait accomplis. The motion was already made and seconded. The legislation is linked. The Chancellor did not officially respond until the next day.
The first press release says the exec cab will meet today to address a veto. So it’s Before the veto vote. (Sorry I’m on my phone so too hard to quote)
Bay, I think you’re doing a bit of creating your own world so that it fits your preconceptions.
Who are these “anti-flag” people? Is it that if we don’t fervently worship and defend the flag as this pristine marker of freedom that we’re anti-flag? If so, count me as one of those anti-flag people. Count my entire military family as part of those anti-flag people.
I can think of nothing more stomach-churning than essentially accusing people of being traitors because they exercise their rights.
What’s that famous quote… something like “I may not like what you say, but I’ll go to the death for your right to say it.”
Thank you, romani. The complete comment, as was already posted, said the veto motion was already made and seconded. IIRC they were waiting for one last vote, and as it was a Saturday, maybe not all the students were on campus (just conjecturing).
Here is one last tidbit to read from the Executive Branch of the student government, and then there really is nothing more to be said about this long dead matter.
Except for what you posted just below that line…
The “people” who repeatedly taken the flag down in the middle of the night should be dismissed from the college.
I am just reporting the “facts” as they were posted. Disciplinary issues are another matter. I hope they had a dropcam camera set up to see who exactly was doing it, though I suspect they know.
I would suspect that such actions is a form of political speech and thus protected speech. (Unless one wants to make the case that taking down the flag is a form of vandalism; if so, not sure that a first time offense is worthy of expulsion.)
Thinking back on some of the pranks that were pulled when we were in college, taking a flag down from the wall seems kinda tame.
It wasn’t a prank.
It was a contravention.
Burning down the building could also be deemed political speech. Doesn’t mean there should not be consequences.
Oh puleeze.
Jeez Romani, talk about over-blowing up my comment and making it all about you. It wasn’t addressed to you at all. No one called you a traitor other than yourself.
No. Burning down a building is considered destruction of property and yes, certainly a crime.
Some anti-flaggists may have a coherent anti free speech political philosophy.
It is contradictory to revere a flag as a symbol of free speech, yet in practice oppose selected free speech.
OP here.
Lol, I thought this old thread of mine was done. Lemme go get my popcorn…
No, it isn’t. It would be contradictory to support the banning of a flag, but then object to banning other types of speech.
Merely expressing one’s like for some speech and not for others is exactly what free speech is intended to make free and unfettered.
Everybody’s opinion is based on their background.
Based on mine, the action of the Associated Students council
are not the actions of liberty seekers but the actions of tirany, imposing your own preferences on the rest…and this attitude is prevaling more and more often. It is a dangerous path that will lead to distruction of what was built on sweat and blood of many generations…and, again, I am speaking from my life experience, not somebody else’s, and what I see is that the history lessons are not being looked at as the lessons to learn from. History is not the collection of dates, names and places, it is a great human experience to be analysed over and over and over…but it is not the way it is taught, because, god forbit, we might develop some analytical skills in kids by teaching all classes this way and it is a big NO-NO. Just give them busy work, junk up their brains, wash them out of any attempt to analyze anything by using their own logical process…this is the goal, otherwise they start applying some logic to what is going on around them…and then will would never have such a wonderful and achieving the Associated Students council…
@Bay, nope I am talking about the desire to ban other speech, not merely to express your dislike of it. For example, the desire to ban flag burning.
Ok, that is a a fair point, but first there was a reasonable question of whether flag burning constituted “protected speech” in the first instance, so I can understand people objecting to it before that was made clear by the courts. Now that we know it is an expression of free speech, then it would be hypocritical to want to ban it.
I don’t know why this thread has turned into criticizing “fervent” flag “worshipers.” People are fervent about and worship all kinds of things, like dogs, and who cares? As long as your dog isn’t defecating on my lawn or licking my ankles, I am thrilled that you have found something in life to be passionate about. Why the hate for people who love flags? Wouldn’t that be contradictory for you, if there is something in life that you love?
The contradictions in “flag burning” hurt my head. Aren’t old flags supposed to be “retired” by burning? And what about the patriotic numbskulls who “honor” the flag by wearing it as ripped up shorts:
http://mayawashington.com/blog/us-flag-shorts.jpg
https://slm-assets1.secondlife.com/assets/3844449/lightbox/American%20Shorts.jpg?1309791747
