Court orders upstate woman to remove Confederate flag or risk custody of multi

[Texacon]

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215415650

Demovictory9 (18,334 posts)


Court orders upstate woman to remove Confederate flag or risk custody of multi racial child

ALBANY – Appellate justices in Albany on Thursday ordered a woman in Tompkins County to remove a rock from her driveway that is painted with a Confederate flag or risk a "change of circumstances" in the custody case of her multiracial daughter.

In a unanimous 5-0 ruling, appellate justices allowed the couple to retain joint custody of the child, who was born in 2014 and attends school in the Dryden Central School District, which is east of Ithaca.

But if the Confederate-flag-decorated rock is not removed by June 1, Family Court would be obliged to factor its presence "into any future best interests analysis” regarding the child, stated Justice Stanley Pritzker, who authored the decision by the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court's Third Department, the state's second-highest court.

The mother, identified only as Christie BB, testified at a fact-finding hearing that “she had a rock with a Confederate flag painted on it at her home,” Pritzker said in the ruling.

“In response to questioning, the mother testified that she has never used any racial slurs in front of the child or at all,” the ruling said.


https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Court-orders-upstate-woman-to-remove-Confederate-16156632.php

BGBD (2,502 posts)

6. That's really not up to them

And threatening to take her kid away because of it is a clear violation of her 1st amendment rights.

We should all be against this.

Towlie (4,658 posts)

9. Did you know that children have rights too? They're not like pets, which are considered property.

 
←

msfiddlestix (1,794 posts)

10. Free Speech doesn't Protect Hate Speech

Teaching Racism should be considered as abuse. Pornography is considered free speech, except when children are involved. Exposing children to pornography is at the minimum considered as abuse, and certainly cause for child protection, and in the case of adoption or custody to be refused guardianship etc.

My only question is why allow such a long waiting period before required removal. Why isn't the court order immediate removal?

BGBD (2,502 posts)

24. What if she was black

And has a BLM flag in a deep red state and they threatened her then?

We don't just protect speech of things you like.

StarfishSaver (15,191 posts)

27. A BLM flag is not hate soeech

no matter how much racist right wingers says it is.

Yes, I see exactly how that works. I'm surprised you've adopted that trope and are repeating it here.

BGBD (2,502 posts)

35. You, or the state, don't get to decide what is or isn't hate speech, that's the whole point.

The Supreme Court has made this clear over and over again, as recently as Matal V. Tam. They have ruled in the recent past that burning crosses is protected speech. Do you think a confederate flag painted on a little rock is going to change their minds?

Speech an any type is generally protected as long as it doesn't meet clear and present danger standards.

The first amendment is meant to protect unpopular speech, nobody needs to protect popular speech.

StarfishSaver (15,191 posts)

38. You really need to stop lecturing me about the Constitution

You obviously have only a shallow understanding of it, notwithstanding your propensity to throw around buzzwords and names of cases you obviously haven't read much less are able to analyze.

AnyFunctioningAdult (111 posts)

39. Exactly

It is frustrating sometimes to hear people arguing that things that personally offend them should be banned. If the government gained that power, I think we all know what would happen the next time Republicans regained power.

BGBD (2,502 posts)

5. It's protected speech

There's no way they would be able to affect her custodial rights because of it and that ruling stand in a challenge.

msfiddlestix (1,794 posts)

11. Not when children are exposed to hate speech

The confederate flag is considered as a symbol of hate.

Raising bi-racial children, that would be considered as a form a abuse, therefore custodial rights refused, I should think.

MarineCombatEngineer (3,973 posts)

19. Really?

Cite the exception to the 1A that bans hate speech when children are exposed.

StarfishSaver (15,191 posts)

30. This is where you seem to be confused:

a person has a First Amendment right to express themselves pretty much however they choose. But that right is not unlimited.

A parent also has certain rights to have custody of their children, but that right is not unlimited.

Children have a right to live in environments that are safe for them and not harmful to their physical or emotional well-being.

And when those rights conflict, the best interest of the child always prevails.

A person has a right to free speech but if, in exercising that right to free speech, they are harming the emotional health of the child, a court or other government entity will intervene.

A person has a right to hold Klan rallies and burn crosses in their backyard to their hearts content. But if they do it in full view of their Black child, their First Amendment rights will be subordinated to the interest in getting that child away from them.

A person's right to say the N word is protected by the Constitution. But if a foster parent regularly called their Black foster child "the little ******," that child would probably be removed post haste - and the judge would surely laugh in their face if they tried to claim their First Amendment rights had been violated.

A Confederate flag may not be a big deal to you, but it is a symbol of hate targeted at people of color and the state has every right to question whether a person displaying it should have their ability to keep a Black child in their midst questioned.

BGBD (2,502 posts)

33. Nothing you are saying applies to this case

The simple presence of the flag on the property in no way makes them unsafe and no one have made the claim that they are not safe with the mother. Otherwise, removing the flag wouldn't also remove that situation.

And I can guarantee that there are parents who call their kids that exact word, and nothing is done to remove them. Considering when I've seen it first hand, it's been a black man calling him black son that, then I certainly hope you don't think that's justifiable reason to remove the son from him.

StarfishSaver (15,191 posts)

36. You're good

at obfuscation, distraction and red herring tossing. You even got a "Black people say it all the time, so it's no big deal" in there.

Nicely done.

But I see right through it and won't jump into your rabbit holes. We both know exactly what you're doing.

Fun thread!  Some DUmmies letting their full on fascists out.

KC

[USA4ME]

StarfishSaver

We both know exactly what you're doing.

So far they're making an argument that you can't answer except to act arrogant and dismissive, something of which you don't possess the mental capacity to pull off.

And this is another primitive doing this. How embarrassing to you that even the most unintelligent of your ideology can think circles around you. Take this advise: Definitely don't try to take on conservatives. You don't stand a chance.

.

[franksolich]

And when those rights conflict, the best interest of the child always prevails.

Excepting when they conflict with the right of abortion profiteers to rake in big bucks.

[enslaved1]

Star Member StarfishSaver (15,192 posts)
30. This is where you seem to be confused:

a person has a First Amendment right to express themselves pretty much however they choose. But that right is not unlimited.

A parent also has certain rights to have custody of their children, but that right is not unlimited.

Children have a right to live in environments that are safe for them and not harmful to their physical or emotional well-being.

And when those rights conflict, the best interest of the child always prevails.

A person has a right to free speech but if, in exercising that right to free speech, they are harming the emotional health of the child, a court or other government entity will intervene.

A person has a right to hold Klan rallies and burn crosses in their backyard to their hearts content. But if they do it in full view of their Black child, their First Amendment rights will be subordinated to the interest in getting that child away from them.

A person's right to say the N word is protected by the Constitution. But if a foster parent regularly called their Black foster child "the little ******," that child would probably be removed post haste - and the judge would surely laugh in their face if they tried to claim their First Amendment rights had been violated.

A Confederate flag may not be a big deal to you, but it is a symbol of hate targeted at people of color and the state has every right to question whether a person displaying it should have their ability to keep a Black child in their midst questioned.

Best interest of the child eh?  No white or Jewish children at Nation of Islam rallies, then, correct?  How about flying a Communist Chinese flag around Muslim children, since the Chi-Coms are focused on the exterminating the Uyger Muslims right now?  No Palestinian flags around Jewish children either.  And do not get me started on the effects of puberty blockers, abortions, and birth control on young children. 

Moonbats being moonbats, meaning they pragmatically apply what they want to apply to ideas, but ignore the ripple effects of applying those same ideas to other situations, particularly situations they don't agree with. 

Star Member StarfishSaver (15,192 posts)
28. Oh, please

Just stop. Read the room. I don't think you realize how you're coming across.


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #28)

Mon May 10, 2021, 12:13 PM

BGBD (2,505 posts)
31. I don't care about "the room"

I care about the 1st amendment though.



Response to BGBD (Reply #31)

Mon May 10, 2021, 12:20 PM

Star Member StarfishSaver (15,192 posts)
32. You may care about the First Amendment, but you don't seem to understand it



Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #32)

Mon May 10, 2021, 12:32 PM

BGBD (2,505 posts)
37. It's not me

that thinks speech is only protected if I agree with it.


Response to BGBD (Reply #37)

Mon May 10, 2021, 12:37 PM

Star Member StarfishSaver (15,192 posts)
41. Whatever

 

  SS (funny choice of initials for a moonbat, BTW) can't debate her way out of a wet paper bag, resorting to middle school brushoffs when reminded that principles don't change with "the room" they are constant. 

[Karin]

Starfish certainly beclowned themselves in that thread.  What an insufferable asshole. 

[DUmpDiver]

To their credit, I am surprisingly impressed by DUmmies who are defending The First Amendment.

[ADsOutburst]

So far they're making an argument that you can't answer except to act arrogant and dismissive, something of which you don't possess the mental capacity to pull off.

And this is another primitive doing this. How embarrassing to you that even the most unintelligent of your ideology can think circles around you. Take this advise: Definitely don't try to take on conservatives. You don't stand a chance.

.

^^^This.

StarfishSaver (15,191 posts)

38. You really need to stop lecturing me about the Constitution

You obviously have only a shallow understanding of it, notwithstanding your propensity to throw around buzzwords and names of cases you obviously haven't read much less are able to analyze.

Just  .

[Happy Fun Ball]

msfiddlestix (1,794 posts)

10. Free Speech doesn't Protect Hate Speech

Yes it does. The First Amendment protects ALL speech, and if all speech isn't protected, then ultimately none of it is. What is perfectly fine to say today, could be considered "hate speech" tomorrow.

[Texacon]

Yes it does. The First Amendment protects ALL speech, and if all speech isn't protected, then ultimately none of it is. What is perfectly fine to say today, could be considered "hate speech" tomorrow.

They’re all buying Joe’s bullshit of no amendment is absolute. If it’s not then they need to go through the motions of legally changing it.

KC

[ADsOutburst]

They’re all buying Joe’s bullshit of no amendment is absolute. If it’s not then they need to go through the motions of legally changing it.

KC

I'm always at a loss to understand how exactly dems view the Bill of Rights. Do they think it's like the "Pirates of the Caribbean" pirate code (a.k.a. "general guidelines")?