From the comments that inevitably accompany the posting of this cartoon, I’m supposed to think that “Kevin” is an asshole. The artist chose to depict the young man with his feet up on his desk. The problem with this is that while perhaps this young man is not standing to say the pledge because he’s lazy or a prick, this young man is meant to represent anyone who chooses not to stand. So, problem number one is that this cartoon is saying that anyone who doesn’t stand for the pledge is doing so because he’s just being a punk. Since many people who choose not to stand do so for, you know, a reason, Breen commits a classic ‘strawman” fallacy.
Secondly, regardless of the reason that Kevin refuses to stand, which I’ll get to in a minute, the teacher points out that Kevin is acting within his rights. In West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that students could not be compelled to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. The teacher’s subtext here is “I am going to publicly shame you for choosing to exercise your rights.” If the marine protected the student’s right to stay seated, isn’t the student choosing to exercise this right a validation of the marine’s sacrifice? If the marine is upset, perhaps he had a different motivation. You can’t say you’re defending someone’s rights, then become upset when they exercise those rights that you defended. Free speech protection does not protect speech which the majority agrees, because that would be superfluous. It protects unpopular speech.
