[mykej]

Rainsing one's fist in no way interferes with anybody else's ability to say or listen to the pledge.

Yes, I understand the symbolism of the raised fist, and if he believes the US is a racist state, under the constitution he has the right to express his opinion. It doesn't matter if his opinion is right or wrong or even provably false. It is his opinion, and he is entitled to express it, so long as he doesn't violate anybody else's rights in so doing.

So please tell me, how does his expression of speech intrude on anybody else's rights? Would you prefer it if they gave him a daily minute for rebuttal to the pledge?

And to answer your last question, no it wouldn't bother me if he flew the bird either. Symbols mean what you want them to, and obscenity or patriotism is in the eye of the beholder.

If somebody *really* believes that the US is a racist society, isn't it their *obligation* to point it out and try to correct the matter? Is it not your duty as a citizen to help your country become a better place?

Yes, we can, and will, disagree on "better". But the whole point is that everybody has a right to his or her stupid opinion, and the right to try to convince others that that belief is correct.

[Austin Willard Wright]

It is rather odd that freepers who are always worried about people being "too sensitive" (and properly so) now are so worried by the other students who "might have been offended" by one lone student holding his fist in the air.

[Michael.SF.]

"So please tell me, how does his expression of speech intrude on anybody else's rights?"

Where have you been? There are so many limitations placed on our "free speech" rights as to almost make them meaningless, at times. Try these as examples:

A man in Washington DC was forced to resign from his job for using the word 'niggardly'. The word was used properly, but in front of some ignorant people who mistook it for the racial pejorative.

Hate crimes - Why is the use of a racial pejorative during an assault deemed to be a greater crime then just plain assault? Does one not have a free speech right to use such words, even if inflammatory?

Utterances of Pejoratives - The City of Laguna Beach passed legislation to start tracking people who use pejoratives such as: faggot. The lists are being kept to track people, for what purpose?

The use of certain words to describe people is no longer acceptable and can cause people grievous injury from being fired to being killed. WHY? Because people find such words to be offensive. But the right of a person to offend others is subjectively protected. Thus some feel a Black Power salute or burning a flag or giving the bird during the Pledge is acceptable, in spite of the fact that many find it offensive.

To accept one demonstration of "free speech" while simultaneously passing legislation on Hate crimes (thought police), or by selectively denouncing other forms is very hypocritical.