NationStates Jolt Archive

After the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a Constitutional amendment to criminalize any "physical desecration" of the American flag, the ACLU urged the Senate to reject it when it comes to a floor vote this week. If adopted, it would be the first time the Constitution has been used to restrict First Amendment freedoms.

"The right to voice a dissenting viewpoint - no matter how unpopular - is a bedrock principle of America," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The First Amendment is most important when it protects speech that is controversial and repugnant."

If you are an American now is the time to contact your Congressman or Senator.

http://www.aclu.org/

People can say anything they darn well please. A foreign citizen can do anything he wants with an American flag. For a US citizen to burn the US flag is, at least symbollically, near-treasonous, and I see no reason to not ban it. Or haven't you ever recited the Pledge of Allegiance? The place of our flag may be completely out of whack, but given that it's there, and as a US citizen you're supposed to uphold your country... I really don't see how this comes under the First Amendment at all. It's like saying I can go draw a pair of mustaches on the Statue of Liberty, because heck, it's public property, right, and I have a right to say what I want! There's this thing called intent of law, as well as letter.

Point of order:

Burning a flag one of the preferred ways of properly disposing of it once it has become tattered and worn.

US Flag Code: TITLE 4 > CHAPTER 1 > § 8 (k) http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html

It is therefore silly to write a constitutional amendment to prevent flag burning.

It's like saying I can go draw a pair of mustaches on the Statue of Liberty, because heck, it's public property, right, and I have a right to say what I want! There's this thing called intent of law, as well as letter.

What about a flag that someone buys with their own money? It's not public property, its the property of that private citizen. Since it belongs to that person, why should there be any reason why he or she cant burn it?

Not to mention flag burning is supposed to be the proper way to retire them. :rolleyes:

Flag burning is a vile and evil thing to do and I support the ban. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It is not speech. Speech is made of words. Look it up. 5 Justices on the Supreme Court went over the head of the American people ( more than 70% of us support the Amendment) and declared that the destruction of the symbol of our culture and heritage is a right. Shame on them.

This law is not intended to protect public property.
This law is ment to restrict an action because of the social/political messages it is meant to convey. If that's not a violation of the first amendment, what is?

This law is not intended to protect public property.
This law is ment to restrict an action because of the social/political messages it is meant to convey. If that's not a violation of the first amendment, what is?

Flag burning has nothing to do with speech.

For a US citizen to burn the US flag is, at least symbollically, near-treasonous, and I see no reason to not ban it. Or haven't you ever recited the Pledge of Allegiance? The place of our flag may be completely out of whack, but given that it's there, and as a US citizen you're supposed to uphold your country... I really don't see how this comes under the First Amendment at all.

I have been a school teacher for nearly 20 years. I recite the pledge as part of my job. I also know that that piece of cloth is nothing if it doesn't represent the freedoms and liberties guaranteed to every American citizen. And one of those freedoms is freedom of expression.

It ain't freedom if you don't have the freedom to dissent. It ain't freedom if you don't have the freedom to express unpopular views.

People can say anything they darn well please. A foreign citizen can do anything he wants with an American flag. For a US citizen to burn the US flag is, at least symbollically, near-treasonous, and I see no reason to not ban it. Or haven't you ever recited the Pledge of Allegiance? The place of our flag may be completely out of whack, but given that it's there, and as a US citizen you're supposed to uphold your country... I really don't see how this comes under the First Amendment at all. It's like saying I can go draw a pair of mustaches on the Statue of Liberty, because heck, it's public property, right, and I have a right to say what I want! There's this thing called intent of law, as well as letter.
Desicrating all that the flag stands for by taking away the freedoms it represents is worse treason then any ammount of fire

We should just ignore this crap that the Republicans are pulling to try to get votes in November. Eventually this along with the gay marriage ban will go away and hopefully some real lawmaking will actually get done.

Flag burning has nothing to do with speech.
Don’t be willfully ignorant it has been upheld in more then one precedent that the intent of the constitution is to protect people’s right to make a statement … burning a flag is such a thing.

Unless it is a danger to safety (such as burning one in a public place) people should have every right to burn their property to make a political statement

I have been a school teacher for nearly 20 years. I recite the pledge as part of my job. I also know that that piece of cloth is nothing if it doesn't represent the freedoms and liberties guaranteed to every American citizen. And one of those freedoms is freedom of expression.

It ain't freedom if you don't have the freedom to dissent. It ain't freedom if you don't have the freedom to express unpopular views.

Exactly. Banning people from burning the American flag is far more disrespectful to the ideals this country was founded upon than the mere act of burning it could ever be.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter, and they found that "symbolic speech" is still protected under the freedom of speech amendment. The case is called (I think) Texas vs. Johnson, and stands as a landmark case in First Amendment protection. Symbolically speaking, burning the flag is akin to verbally criticizing the government. A ban on flag burning may lead to more restrictive amendments concerning verbal speech and other rights we take for granted.

Flag burning has nothing to do with speech.
It is action that exists for the expressed purpose of expressing an idea. How is that not speach?

Flag burning has nothing to do with speech.

Oops, youre wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v_Johnson

1) Americans are by and large ignorant of their own country, screw the 70%

2) Point 1 being demonstrated, few Americans know of symbolic speech. (above posters being said few)

Flag burning has nothing to do with speech.

Symbolic speech is also speech.

The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson, 1989 that flag burning was protected speech.

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the 1st Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive...We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecation, for in doing so we dilute the freedom this cherished emblem represents."

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.

Don’t be willfully ignorant it has been upheld in more then one precedent that the intent of the constitution is to protect people’s right to make a statement … burning a flag is such a thing.

Unless it is a danger to safety (such as burning one in a public place) people should have every right to burn their property to make a political statement

I know all about the precedent. I do not agree with the precedent. That's what you don't get. The precedent is wrong.

I know all about the precedent. I do not agree with the precedent. That's what you don't get. The precedent is wrong.

No. You're wrong.

You have the right to wear a confederate flag on your shirt. You have the right to post a yellow ribbon on your car. You have the right to wear a black armband in protest of war.

All of that is symbolic speech.

I know all about the precedent. I do not agree with the precedent. That's what you don't get. The precedent is wrong.

So because YOU dont agree with it, it's automatically wrong? :rolleyes:

It is action that exists for the expressed purpose of expressing an idea. How is that not speach?

Speech: The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.

I can give a person the finger. This action expresses an idea. It is not speech.

I know all about the precedent. I do not agree with the precedent. That's what you don't get. The precedent is wrong.

The point is to protect the communication of ideas. Speach, press, assemply, petition. Even Religion, in a way. If the first amendment doesn't protect symbolic speach, we need one that does.

Oops, youre wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v_Johnson

Wikipedia.haha.

And yeah, that was a 5-4 court decision that was highly contested. I disagree with it. If you want me to I can explain why in great detail.

Speech: The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.

I can give a person the finger. This action expresses an idea. It is not speech.

It's symbolic speech. "Fuck you/off" to be precise.

1) Americans are by and large ignorant of their own country, screw the 70%

2) Point 1 being demonstrated, few Americans know of symbolic speech. (above posters being said few)


Effete liberalism at its best.

Speech: The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.

I can give a person the finger. This action expresses an idea. It is not speech.

No, it is symbolic speech. As was set in Texas vs. Johnson.

Wikipedia.haha.

And yeah, that was a 5-4 court decision that was highly contested. I disagree with it. If you want me to I can explain why in great detail.
What's to haha? It has it's sources, or perhaps the reading was trouble for you. Go on and explain.

Symbolic speech is also speech.

The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson, 1989 that flag burning was protected speech.

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the 1st Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive...We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecation, for in doing so we dilute the freedom this cherished emblem represents."

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.

Brennan was an activist liberal and is famous for it.

Speech is made up of words. Flag burning is not.

Id like to see your source that says that 70% of americans think flag burning should be banned.

Desicrating all that the flag stands for by taking away the freedoms it represents is worse treason then any ammount of fire

All of which is extremely subject to interpretation by each individual. Myself, I'd rather not be jumping at your shadows for the rest of my natural life.

I believe it has already been established, for good or ill, that flag burning has been established as a Constitutionally protected form of free speech. As, I believe, is my right to beat the living sh*t out of anyone I catch doing it.

No. You're wrong.

You have the right to wear a confederate flag on your shirt. You have the right to post a yellow ribbon on your car. You have the right to wear a black armband in protest of war.

All of that is symbolic speech.

Yes, all of these are true. You can do all of those things. Congress has the right to ban them if it chooses. It has not and will not.

Effete liberalism at its best.

Can we make the fancy words meaningful next time?

Brennan was an activist liberal and is famous for it.

Speech is made up of words. Flag burning is not.

This country is about freedom, not flags. If you don't know that then you don't know what it means to be an American.

Brennan was an activist liberal and is famous for it.

Speech is made up of words. Flag burning is not.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/symbolic

All of which is extremely subject to interpretation by each individual. Myself, I'd rather not be jumping at your shadows for the rest of my natural life.

I believe it has already been established, for good or ill, that flag burning has been established as a Constitutionally protected form of free speech. As, I believe, is my right to beat the living sh*t out of anyone I catch doing it.
Thankfully beating people has been established to NOT be a right to an individual. I never have and never would burn a flag, but if you beat someone for such a silly reason you deserve every minuit you spend behind bars

Id like to see your source that says that 70% of americans think flag burning should be banned.

We can put it right next to mine that says 75% can't name the freedoms in the first amendment.

What's to haha? It has it's sources, or perhaps the reading was trouble for you. Go on and explain.

Wikipedia is not an acceptable source. I can change that article to say anything I want. So can you. Wikipedia is a joke.

The first Amendment says that Congress can not pass a law that limits freedom of speech. It says nothing about symbolism, expression of ideas, artwork, etc. It says : speech.

Speech: The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.

Wikipedia is not an acceptable source. I can change that article to say anything I want. So can you. Wikipedia is a joke.

Only one making me laugh here is you. The article links directly to the court decision.

The first Amendment says that Congress can not pass a law that limits freedom of speech. It says nothing about symbolism, expression of ideas, artwork, etc. It says : speech.

Speech: The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.

And, thanks to our justices' capacities for reasoning, protects symbolic speech as well.

This country is about freedom, not flags. If you don't know that then you don't know what it means to be an American.

"For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag."

The spirit of America is not represented by that vile protester.

We should just ignore this crap that the Republicans are pulling to try to get votes in November. Eventually this along with the gay marriage ban will go away and hopefully some real lawmaking will actually get done.

Quoted for truth!

Speech: The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.

Luckily our esteemed justices know that "speech" is much more than simply speaking. Hell, pornography is freedom of speech.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/symbolic

show me where the word "symbolic" appears in the Constitution.

show me where the word "symbolic" appears in the Constitution.

Show me where the words "articulation of words" appears in the constitution.

Just ignore the troll, hopefully he'll go away soon.

"For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag."

The spirit of America is not represented by that vile protester.

Fancy, yes. But does this have a point? The protester is quite the important part of America, as much so as the soldier. Without the soldier, we might not be here; without the protester, we would not go anywhere.

And, thanks to our justices' capacities for reasoning, protects symbolic speech as well.

5 Justices made up a new right that you happen to like and so you praise them. What if Scalia had switched sides? Would you still be praising the high and mighty court????????????

Just ignore the troll, hopefully he'll go away soon.

He might, but it's almost midnight and I'm bored.

"For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag."

The spirit of America is not represented by that vile protester.

Thank god for solders that understand enough about our country to do the right things and protect those rights he has sworn to protect not just from outside attack but those internal that wish to strip those rights from us?

And the spirit of America is in many protesters … those fighting for what is right in their own ways. Trying to make this nation live up to its potential.

Luckily our esteemed justices know that "speech" is much more than simply speaking.

Again, what if Scalia had came down on the other side and it became a 5-4 decision AGAINST flag burning. Would you still feel the same way? Or are you a hypocrite?

Speech: The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.

I can give a person the finger. This action expresses an idea. It is not speech.
The definition that exists in the dictionary is not nessarily the legal definition, the court has stated (and I'm combining a few rulings here for the sake of convenience), that the freedom of speech protects all words, writing, and actions that have serious Political, Social, Scientific, or Artistic value from regulation baised solely on the views that they express and/or public reactions to them.

Continuing in the line of reasoning you have expressed, would you suggest that what someone writes is not protected speech.

This country is about freedom, not flags. If you don't know that then you don't know what it means to be an American.
"For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag."

The spirit of America is not represented by that vile protester.

Everything you have quoted could have been said about Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or Soviet Russia.

However, what I said could only apply to America.

5 Justices made up a new right that you happen to like and so you praise them. What if Scalia had switched sides? Would you still be praising the high and mighty court????????????

I'm just saying they're capable of something above basic reasoning. Not all are so blessed, apparently.

Show me where the words "articulation of words" appears in the constitution.

"Speech"

No way it passes . I love my country and my flag and I will die to protect the first ammendment that the flag stands for . Misguided idiots think that protecting a flag will somehow protect the constitution and American ideals ? How ????? .... by throwing away one of most important ..if not the most important right ..the right to freedom of expression and free speech .

"Speech"

Oh, you mean that word with lots of definitions?

I didn't risk my life in the war on terror so jingoist faux-patriots can declare war on half the country, for limited, narrow and personal ends. I stand forever opposed to the bastardization of honor and liberty for the furtherence of social engineering and indoctrination.

Just ignore the troll, hopefully he'll go away soon.


If you are talking about me you are twice mistaken.

1) don't expect me to leave
2) I have not insulted or defamed anybody. In fact, you are the first person to go and say somthing negative about another person on this thread. Please stop.

After the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a Constitutional amendment to criminalize any "physical desecration" of the American flag, the ACLU urged the Senate to reject it when it comes to a floor vote this week. If adopted, it would be the first time the Constitution has been used to restrict First Amendment freedoms.

"The right to voice a dissenting viewpoint - no matter how unpopular - is a bedrock principle of America," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The First Amendment is most important when it protects speech that is controversial and repugnant."

If you are an American now is the time to contact your Congressman or Senator.

http://www.aclu.org/
i rather burn the president... at least he screams...

The definition that exists in the dictionary is not nessarily the legal definition, the court has stated (and I'm combining a few rulings here for the sake of convenience), that the freedom of speech protects all words, writing, and actions that have serious Political, Social, Scientific, or Artistic value from regulation baised solely on the views that they express and/or public reactions to them.

Continuing in the line of reasoning you have expressed, would you suggest that what someone writes is not protected speech.

Wrong. When you write you articulate words.

Wrong. When you write you articulate words.

I don't think you have any idea what Goldwater stood for.

Everything you have quoted could have been said about Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or Soviet Russia.

.

And I am the troll? Fascinating.

"For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag."

The spirit of America is not represented by that vile protester.
So, free speech is supposed to guarentee the freedom to represent whatever spirit you so choose. If the opinion of the majority was the only thing that the first amendment protected we would hardly need it now would we.

If you are talking about me you are twice mistaken.

1) don't expect me to leave
2) I have not insulted or defamed anybody. In fact, you are the first person to go and say somthing negative about another person on this thread. Please stop.

1) Sucks for us, eh?
2) Eh, I'm sure I did it first.

I'm just saying they're capable of something above basic reasoning. Not all are so blessed, apparently.

I am called a "troll" yet I have not insulted one person here. Look what you wrote! Not good.

I don't remember the exact case (somebody v Texas) where the supreme court said flag burning and symbolic speech did fall under the first amendment.

However,

Symbolic hate speech was not protected (Burning crosses for example) even if it was on ones own property.

I would like to see a reason for banning flag burning and if it has the word patriotic in it...*angry sigh*...so help you.

Wrong. When you write you articulate words.
Hmmm if you are going to use such a stupidly narrow definition would it make you feel better if they just wrote all over their flags and flew them like that?

So, if free speech is supposed to guarentee the freedom to represent whatever spirit you so choose.

People can say whatever they want. I do not want to see a flag burn any more than I want to see a cross burned. How about you?

You seem to be making the assumption that speech can only mean ONE thing. Yes, it does mean the articulation of words, but theres many other things involved in speech.

For example:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/speech

Number 7 on that list of definitions is "The sounding of a musical instrument." This is different from the articulation of words. Although it has nothing to do with flag burning, it does show that speech can include more than just words, which leaves the definition broad and open to interpretation.

Not to mention, if you disagree with the link, and say that the sounding of a musical instrument ISNT speech, then you prove that definitions can be debatable, and the "articulation of words" definition that youre toting around is also debatable.

Again, what if Scalia had came down on the other side and it became a 5-4 decision AGAINST flag burning. Would you still feel the same way? Or are you a hypocrite?

It would have been a contradictory ruling with other forms of non-verbal speech being perfect legal. Besides you are giving a hypothetical, what COULD have happened doesn't matter. The precedent is there, flag burning is legal. So it is. Congress needs to focus on something a little more important. Perhaps giving more Americans health insurance or fighting the poverty in this country? Something that actually affects peoples lives then someone burning a piece of cloth?

People can say whatever they want. I do not want to see a flag burn any more than I want to see a cross burned. How about you?
Personally I wish to see neither , but would rather see either of them before the right to say express one’s self is taken away.

And I am the troll? Fascinating.

I'm not sure what you mean. I have not called you anything. My point is that every soldier fights for his country. Every soldier is patriotic. Every soldier believes he is protecting his country's way of life.

Our country is not founded on militaristic ideals. Our country is not represented by the soldier.

What best represents America is the person who stands up, in the face of all odds and opposition, and says to his or her government - no.

That is America.

Thankfully beating people has been established to NOT be a right to an individual. I never have and never would burn a flag, but if you beat someone for such a silly reason you deserve every minuit you spend behind bars

Oh dear. Was I being too subtle? Allow me to explain. I was using the example of beating the sh*t out of flag burners as an allusion to illustrate what I feel is the utter absurdity of the Supreme Court ruling that such a supreme act of disrespect such as flag burning could ever be considered as an example of exercising one's right to free speech.

People can say whatever they want. I do not want to see a flag burn any more than I want to see a cross burned. How about you?
Well wether I want to see it burned or not is immatirial, as long as the object inquestion is the property of the person burning it, and it is done on public property or the private property of the person burning it, the government has no right to restrict them.

Oh dear. Was I being too subtle? Allow me to explain. I was using the example of beating the sh*t out of flag burners as an allusion to illustrate what I feel is the utter absurdity of the Supreme Court ruling that such a supreme act of disrespect such as flag burning could ever be considered as an example of exercising one's right to free speech.

And just how many citizens do you want to jail?

Oh dear. Was I being too subtle? Allow me to explain. I was using the example of beating the sh*t out of flag burners as an allusion to illustrate what I feel is the utter absurdity of the Supreme Court ruling that such a supreme act of disrespect such as flag burning could ever be considered as an example of exercising one's right to free speech.
Sense when is respect required in the united states … as far as I know we were free to respect or not respect any thing we choose

listen, little things... why don't you just take my advice and burn the president instead to voice your dissent? surelly he's the one to blame for bad policies and corrupting american values, not the flag (that represents them).

plus, it's much more fun...

Oh dear. Was I being too subtle? Allow me to explain. I was using the example of beating the sh*t out of flag burners as an allusion to illustrate what I feel is the utter absurdity of the Supreme Court ruling that such a supreme act of disrespect such as flag burning could ever be considered as an example of exercising one's right to free speech.
The reason you can't beat those who burn flags is because your commiting physical assault, not because your action expresses anti-flagburning views. However, flag burning is being restricted because of the statement it makes.

It would have been a contradictory ruling with other forms of non-verbal speech being perfect legal. Besides you are giving a hypothetical, what COULD have happened doesn't matter. The precedent is there, flag burning is legal. So it is. Congress needs to focus on something a little more important. Perhaps giving more Americans health insurance or fighting the poverty in this country? Something that actually affects peoples lives then someone burning a piece of cloth?

Yes, we could all burn flags, the government will give out healthcare, the we can increase welfare spending until poverty is gone. Pass the peace pipe.

listen, little things... why don't you just take my advice and burn the president instead to voice your dissent? surelly he's the one to blame for bad policies and corrupting american values, not the flag (that represents them).

plus, it's much more fun...

At least try to contribute to the topic when you post.

I'm not sure what you mean. I have not called you anything. My point is that every soldier fights for his country. Every soldier is patriotic. Every soldier believes he is protecting his country's way of life.

Our country is not founded on militaristic ideals. Our country is not represented by the soldier.

What best represents America is the person who stands up, in the face of all odds and opposition, and says to his or her government - no.

That is America.
The flag represents America. I do not "pledge alliegence to the protester"

At least try to contribute to the topic when you post.
i am trying...

Well wether I want to see it burned or not is immatirial, as long as the object inquestion is the property of the person burning it, and it is done on public property or the private property of the person burning it, the government has no right to restrict them.

Hey, the gun powder in an assault weapon is private property. Give me the freedom to burn that too!

Sense when is respect required in the united states … as far as I know we were free to respect or not respect any thing we choose

True. Its how you go about expressing it that counts.

Yes, we could all burn flags, the government will give out healthcare, the we can increase welfare spending until poverty is gone. Pass the peace pipe.

Yes the government should get off its ass and actually accomplish something. Flag burning is a waste of Congress's time.

By the way, cross burning is a way of expressing hate. Flag burners don't neccessarily hate this country. Could be just protesting a U.S. policy. Personally I'd prefer burning Bush & Co. in effigy but hey, to each his own.

Hey, the gun powder in an assault weapon is private property. Give me the freedom to burn that too!

Burning flags tend not to produce high speed progectiles in rapid sucsession.

Hey, the gun powder in an assault weapon is private property. Give me the freedom to burn that too!
They absolutly have that right as long as others safty is not compromised

Yes the government should get off its ass and actually accomplish something. Flag burning is a waste of Congress's time.

By the way, cross burning is a way of expressing hate. Flag burners don't neccessarily hate this country. Could be just protesting a U.S. policy. .

Many a cross was burned to protest U.S. policy. Ever hear of desegregation?

Burning flags tend not to produce high speed progectiles in rapid sucsession.


Time out here. That is very well worded!

Many a cross was burned to protest U.S. policy. Ever hear of desegregation?

Along with the hate, don't forget that the two aren't mutually exclusive.

The flag represents America. I do not "pledge alliegence to the protester"
OK, the flag represents America, if I decide for some reason I don't like America, wouldn't it be legitimate symbolic speech to burn that which represents the U.S.

True. Its how you go about expressing it that counts.
Why should it?

Yes the government should get off its ass and actually accomplish something. Flag burning is a waste of Congress's time.

By the way, cross burning is a way of expressing hate. Flag burners don't neccessarily hate this country. Could be just protesting a U.S. policy. Personally I'd prefer burning Bush & Co. in effigy but hey, to each his own.
careful... i got told off for saying something similar... the only difference was that i suggested burning the real Bush, instead of an effigy... tiny detail, really.

Yes, we could all burn flags, the government will give out healthcare, the we can increase welfare spending until poverty is gone. Pass the peace pipe.

You make those sound like bad things...

Let's not cure the sick and help the poor. Pass the bible. :p

Idiots. the constitution was meant to limit the government, not the people. America is turning into a tinpot dictatorsphip as we know it.

The flag represents America. I do not "pledge alliegence to the protester"

No, you pledge allegiance to a flag that represents "liberty and justice for all." That liberty is enshrined in the Constitution, which guarantees (not gives us) our freedom.

What other nation is founded on the very idea of liberty? People have a right - I would say a duty - to oppose their government when it runs counter to that liberty.

That is what the American colonists did when they sent their lawful government a great big fuck-off protest letter called the Declaration of Independence.

Time out here. That is very well worded!

*nod* A dazed state in which I consume nothing but Juicy Juice has it's moments.

Idiots. the constitution was meant to limit the government, not the people. America is turning into a tinpot dictatorsphip as we know it.
shush, little thing. they're not supposed to hear that...

Along with the hate, don't forget that the two aren't mutually exclusive.


but who cares what the motivation is? The anti- Amendment people in this forum have claimed again and again that symbolic speech is so valuable. If you are going to start restricting it based on motivation than you are making my own point for me. I want to see the flag burning ban in effect because I do not like the motivation.

The Pledge of Allegiance is in no way a legal or binding contract in any sense of the word. It is a useless piece of propoganda. If I don't say the Pledge, that doesn't mean I can get away with treason. If I do say the Pledge, it doesn't commit me to anything greater than I'm already committed to- obeying the law.

OK, the flag represents America, if I decide for some reason I don't like America, wouldn't it be legitimate symbolic speech to burn that which represents the U.S.


Yes, but symbolism has nothing to do with the text of the Constitution.

Sense when is respect required in the united states … as far as I know we were free to respect or not respect any thing we choose

Not anymore. If that were ever true at all. Consider this. A person is a racist. He burns a cross as a symbol of his belief in white supremacy. No one is directly hurt by this act, particularly if he provides his own lumber to build the cross and burns it on his own land. Is this an act of free speech, or a hate crime?

By today's laws.... a hate crime. Not free speech.

Even though the act was wholly symbolic. Want more examples?

No, you pledge allegiance to a flag that represents "liberty and justice for all." That liberty is enshrined in the Constitution, which guarantees (not gives us) our freedom.

What other nation is founded on the very idea of liberty? People have a right - I would say a duty - to oppose their government when it runs counter to that liberty.

That is what the American colonists did when they sent their lawful government a great big fuck-off protest letter called the Declaration of Independence.

yes.

Not anymore. If that were ever true at all. Consider this. A person is a racist. He burns a cross as a symbol of his belief in white supremacy. No one is directly hurt by this act, particularly if he provides his own lumber to build the cross and burns it on his own land. Is this an act of free speech, or a hate crime?

By today's laws.... a hate crime. Not free speech.


KKK and Aryan nations can still burn the cross at private gatherings.

Speech is made up of words. Flag burning is not.

Oh, for heaven's sake. If "freedom of speech" was meant to be interpreted as "freedom to use words, but only words," it would have been written that way. If I make a poster depicting Bush with the caption "Liar," the government does not have the authority to white out everything but the word "Liar," because any idiot can comprehend that the image is also part of the speech. Police officers cannot remove protestors' picket signs on the grounds that they feature pictures. Newspapers cannot have the photographs they choose to publish censored by the government. This is not particularly complicated.

At this rate, you'll be explaining that the second amendment was intended to protect citizens' right to literally carry weaponry with them at all times, since it says "bear" arms rather than "own" arms. (Who am I kidding? At this rate, you'll be arguing that the second amendment was merely intended to protect citizens from unnecessary amputation, since that's the most literal definition of "arms.")

The Pledge of Allegiance is in no way a legal or binding contract in any sense of the word. It is a useless piece of propoganda. If I don't say the Pledge, that doesn't mean I can get away with treason. If I do say the Pledge, it doesn't commit me to anything greater than I'm already committed to- obeying the law.

This post is not relavent. All we were talking about was how the flag is the one object that stands as a symbol for a given nation. hence, we pledge alliegence to it....and not somthing else. This is why the flag is important enough to be protected.

Not anymore. If that were ever true at all. Consider this. A person is a racist. He burns a cross as a symbol of his belief in white supremacy. No one is directly hurt by this act, particularly if he provides his own lumber to build the cross and burns it on his own land. Is this an act of free speech, or a hate crime?

By today's laws.... a hate crime. Not free speech.
I personally think that law is BS as well … their freedom of speech should be as protected as anyone else’s.

It is pragmatic but BS all the same, now if they act on that speech the law should come down on them like a hammer of doom.

"Speech"

Maybe you should cite a law dictionary for what 'speech' means in legal terms rather than a general one, hm? Let's check Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law.

Main Entry: speech
Function: noun
words or conduct used to communicate or express a thought.

Oh dear, there goes your argument. The same dictionary also defines symbolic speech and cites an entirely seperate court ruling, City of Harvard v. Gaut, that came to the same conclusion about symbolic speech existing, specifically that 'wearing certain clothing can be a form of protected symbolic speech.'

Now, as for burning the flag, consider it for a moment; did everyone who died for America over the years do so to build a country of liberty and justice, or one where people can be prosecuted for destroying their own private property? If the flag belongs to them, it's their right to decide if they fly it proudly and salute it every morning, pin it to the wall, use it as a tablecloth, line the cat's box with it or, for that matter, set fire to it.

Further, as said earlier, how do you go about banning 'bad' flag burning but not banning burning flags because they're worn out, something which, as Kat has pointed out, is in the flag code?

The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning

This post is not relavent. All we were talking about was how the flag is the one object that stands as a symbol for a given nation. hence, we pledge alliegence to it....and not somthing else. This is why the flag is important enough to be protected.

You aren't proposing to protect the flag, you're proposing to protect random bits of colored thread and string.

Idiots. the constitution was meant to limit the government, not the people. America is turning into a tinpot dictatorsphip as we know it.

We should all be careful is what we should be. We certainly have a hell of alot more rights then we did when this country was first founded. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are just guidelines really. Our rights today all come from legal precedent. I really don't see why this is being talked about. If the Supremes have declared flag burning legal then what the hell is Congress thinking about trying to outlaw it? I will repeat myself as I feel it is important.

To Congress:

Stop wasting your time!

See, I have this thing I like to do called thinking, so I leave symbols to the symbol-minded.

Oh, for heaven's sake. If "freedom of speech" was meant to be interpreted as "freedom to use words, but only words," it would have been written that way. If I make a poster depicting Bush with the caption "Liar," the government does not have the authority to white out everything but the word "Liar," because any idiot can comprehend that the image is also part of the speech. Police officers cannot remove protestors' picket signs on the grounds that they feature pictures. Newspapers cannot have the photographs they choose to publish censored by the government. This is not particularly complicated.

At this rate, you'll be explaining that the second amendment was intended to protect citizens' right to literally carry weaponry with them at all times, since it says "bear" arms rather than "own" arms. (Who am I kidding? At this rate, you'll be arguing that the second amendment was merely intended to protect citizens from unnecessary amputation, since that's the most literal definition of "arms.")

May I remind you that at the Time the first Amendment was written nobody ever said that flag burning was a right. In fact it was a crime! Many states had a ban on the action of flag burning for the first 200 years of the first Amendment's existance. Nobody thought that burning an object was a form of speaking! Good grief.

We should all be careful is what we should be. We certainly have a hell of alot more rights then we did when this country was first founded. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are just guidelines really. Our rights today all come from legal precedent. I really don't see why this is being talked about. If the Supremes have declared flag burning legal then what the hell is Congress thinking about trying to outlaw it? I will repeat myself as I feel it is important.

To Congress:

Stop wasting your time!

The ACLU has been around since the Founding and represents American values. The republican congress is like the nazis. I'm scared that I won't be able to burn a flag when I grow up. Workers of the world, unite!

"Yes, but symbolism has nothing to do with the text of the Constitution." forgot the box
According to the Court which the text of the constitution names the supreme law of the land, it does.
But let us follow your logic for a second,
Neither is literature, does the constitution give the government the right to restrict books baised on there political message.

Also, your not giving a legitimate reason why it should be banned.

Further note: I did not pledge allegiance to the flag, I pled allegiance to the Constitution,and to protect and defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Your flag BS is a distraction.

Yes, but symbolism has nothing to do with the text of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has decided, time and again, that it does. Already mention was the flag burning case, Texas v. Johnson, 1989. The court reaffirmed this ruling in United States v. Eichman, 1990 when it struck down the Flag Protection Act of 1989. Also, there was Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 1969 that said students could express opposition to the Vietnam-American war by wearing black armbands. In Buckley v. Valeo, 1976, the court ruled campaign contributions symbolic, and protected, speech.

There is significant case record that symbolic speech is speech and therefore protected. Your disagreement doesn't change the fact that this issue is settled. That is the very reason Congress is trying to amend the Constitution.

Maybe you should cite a law dictionary for what 'speech' means in legal terms rather than a general one, hm? Let's check Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law.

Main Entry: speech
Function: noun
words or conduct used to communicate or express a thought.

Oh dear, there goes your argument. [/i]?

Nope, the definition is like that because of activist liberal judges who have warped and swelled the Constitution for decades. That is why the amendment is needed. We cannot trust our Judiciary to accuratly interperate the text of our founding legal documents. Speaking=burning. Wow.

This post is not relavent. All we were talking about was how the flag is the one object that stands as a symbol for a given nation. hence, we pledge alliegence to it....and not somthing else. This is why the flag is important enough to be protected.
So sense the flag stands for something else we pledge to the flag? Not the something else?

WTF you would fail pointer theory in programming lol. If you use a pointer to refer to something else when you reference that pointer you are ACTUALY referencing the something else.

Nope, the definition is like that because of activist liberal judges who have warped and swelled the Constitution for decades. That is why the amendment is needed. We cannot trust our Judiciary to accuratly interperate the text of our founding legal documents. Speaking=burning. Wow.

I once again reiterate my view that you have no clue what Goldwater was about.

You aren't proposing to protect the flag, you're proposing to protect random bits of colored thread and string.

Random bits of colored thread and string are one thing. 13 equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the upper hoist-side corner bearing 50 small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars is a flag.

Nope, the definition is like that because of activist liberal judges who have warped and swelled the Constitution for decades. That is why the amendment is needed. We cannot trust our Judiciary to accuratly interperate the text of our founding legal documents. Speaking=burning. Wow.
Lol finally your true colors … the silly cry of “Activist liberal judges” lol at least you did not add the cliché “legislating from the bench”

Random bits of colored thread and string are one thing. 13 equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the upper hoist-side corner bearing 50 small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars is a flag.

Made by whom?

The great thing about America is that if a person wants to burn a flag, they have that right, no matter how repugnant it is to their fellow American citizens. If burning the flag is outlawed, I will be the first to buy a flag and burn it, since it will have ceased to represent the freedom our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers have died to protect, generation after generation.

Thankfully, it is very difficult to ammend the constitution.
Someone mighta mentioned this, but to the person on the first page who talked about 5 Justices going over the heads of 70% of the American people, you should realize that what makes the Supreme Court so precious is it (supposedly) protects the right of the minority against the dictatorship of the majority. How many people do you think supported segregation in the 1950s? If 70% of Americans don't think flags should be burned, they dont have to go out and burn them.

Random bits of colored thread and string are one thing. 13 equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the upper hoist-side corner bearing 50 small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars is a flag.

And ironically enough, that flag is a symbol of the freedom to burn it. Fun! :)

The ACLU has been around since the Founding and represents American values. The republican congress is like the nazis. I'm scared that I won't be able to burn a flag when I grow up. Workers of the world, unite!


Yes! Workers of the World Unite around Communism ( the only ideology that is more deadly than Nazism). yay!

After the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a Constitutional amendment to criminalize any "physical desecration" of the American flag, the ACLU urged the Senate to reject it when it comes to a floor vote this week. If adopted, it would be the first time the Constitution has been used to restrict First Amendment freedoms.

"The right to voice a dissenting viewpoint - no matter how unpopular - is a bedrock principle of America," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The First Amendment is most important when it protects speech that is controversial and repugnant."

If you are an American now is the time to contact your Congressman or Senator.

http://www.aclu.org/

Contact the ACLU to find out how to add your voice to the chorus of people who remember what traditional American values really mean.

Further note: I did not pledge allegiance to the flag, I pled allegiance to the Constitution,and to protect and defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Your flag BS is a distraction.

And this proposition is in my mind, a domestic threat to the constitution, which we must defend against.

The ACLU has been around since the Founding and represents American values. The republican congress is like the nazis. I'm scared that I won't be able to burn a flag when I grow up. Workers of the world, unite!

Reactionaries always try to hold countries back. We will unfortunately have to listen to this crap for another decade at least until a new generation comes into power. I suspect in 20 years we will see gay marriage and marijuana legalized and people talking about abortion alot less then today.

And this proposition is in my mind, a domestic threat to the constitution, which we must defend against.

And we will, by blocking its passage.

Nope, the definition is like that because of activist liberal judges who have warped and swelled the Constitution for decades. That is why the amendment is needed. We cannot trust our Judiciary to accuratly interperate the text of our founding legal documents.

No, 'destruction of your own private property as a form of protest' = 'symbolic speech.' Again, you yourself have argued something which fundamentally is not speaking is protected when you claimed the written word was subject to the First Amendment. Why? The pencil, the paper and the writer don't speak to the reader, so why should it be protected either under your standard?

And again, why should a citizen be forbidden from destroying a certain item of his own property that represents something? Will we also have amendments to forbid the flag's use as a tablecloth, towel, picnic rug and any of the hundreds of other things that someone might deem disrespectful?

You want to respect your flag, respect away. Your neighbour's flag is his, not yours, and if he wants to set fire to it in a manner that doesn't endanger anyone, so what? It's not America, it's a piece of cloth that's his.

"Yes, but symbolism has nothing to do with the text of the Constitution." forgot the box
According to the Court which the text of the constitution names the supreme law of the land, it does.
But let us follow your logic for a second,
Neither is literature, does the constitution give the government the right to restrict books baised on there political message.

Also, your not giving a legitimate reason why it should be banned.

First of all literature is protected by the "freedom of the press" in the first Amendment ( which you would no doubt remember if you had ever read it). Second, the Supreme Court held that flag burning was a right by a 5-4 margin in 1989. If the same case was held today it would no doubt go 5-4 against flag burning ( what with Alito and all). But I find it interesting that you trust William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy more than you do 200 years of tradition and the will of the American people.

First of all literature is protected by the "freedom of the press" in the first Amendment ( which you would no doubt remember if you had ever read it). Second, the Supreme Court held that flag burning was a right by a 5-4 margin in 1989. If the same case was held today it would no doubt go 5-4 against flag burning ( what with Alito and all). But I find it interesting that you trust William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy more than you do 200 years of tradition and the will of the American people.

It's funny that you think you have more knowledge that those who won and had the majority opinion.

Lol finally your true colors … the silly cry of “Activist liberal judges” lol at least you did not add the cliché “legislating from the bench”


They legislated from the bench. 200 years of tradition meant nothing. The text meant nothing. There own sense of morality was the rule of the day. An oligarchy of 5 men should not be the only decider of what rights we have.

Yes! Workers of the World Unite around Communism ( the only ideology that is more deadly than Nazism). yay!

It shows you just how radical the original ideas of the American Founders really were that even today so many people find an organization solely devoted to the Bill of Rights too extreme.

The American Civil Liberties union does nothing except ask courts to uphold the Bill of Rights. They pass no laws. They hold no elective office. They don't have large corporate campaign war chests.

All they do is say, "is this law in keeping with the ideals of American liberty as enshrined in the Constitution?"

And then courts rule.

What a scary, radical group.

They legislated from the bench. 200 years of tradition meant nothing. The text meant nothing. There own sense of morality was the rule of the day. An oligarchy of 5 men should not be the only decider of what rights we have.
How was this decision breaking 200 year tradition?

How was this decision breaking 200 year tradition?

It was the good ole days!

They legislated from the bench. 200 years of tradition meant nothing. The text meant nothing. There own sense of morality was the rule of the day. An oligarchy of 5 men should not be the only decider of what rights we have.


And neither should the majority.

If the ACLU is for it, it's PROBABLY something I should be against.

If you're going to burn the flag of my country, chance are you're not the kind of person who I'd want living here. Wrap yourself in it first.

The great thing about America is that if a person wants to burn a flag, they have that right, no matter how repugnant it is to their fellow American citizens. If burning the flag is outlawed, I will be the first to buy a flag and burn it, since it will have ceased to represent the freedom our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers have died to protect, generation after generation.

Thankfully, it is very difficult to ammend the constitution.
Someone mighta mentioned this, but to the person on the first page who talked about 5 Justices going over the heads of 70% of the American people, you should realize that what makes the Supreme Court so precious is it (supposedly) protects the right of the minority against the dictatorship of the majority. How many people do you think supported segregation in the 1950s? If 70% of Americans don't think flags should be burned, they dont have to go out and burn them.


Here's the difference. Segregation was unconstitutional ( even though in 1896 the Supreme Court said it was.) Time and time again the court held that the precedent of segregation was valuable. They ignored the text of the document ( equal protection under law). IN 1954 they got some brains and struck down Plessy and segregation was legaly over. Flag burning is a similar story. Despite the text of the document the judges have gone overboard and put their own code of morality into interpretation. Either they undo the damage or we amend. End of story.

If the ACLU is for it, it's PROBABLY something I should be against.

If you're going to burn the flag of my country, chance are you're not the kind of person who I'd want living here. Wrap yourself in it first.

Since when is this solely your country?

They legislated from the bench. 200 years of tradition meant nothing. The text meant nothing. There own sense of morality was the rule of the day. An oligarchy of 5 men should not be the only decider of what rights we have.

But you wold have been happier if the same five took them away?

Contact the ACLU to find out how to add your voice to the chorus of people who remember what traditional American values really mean.

Like taking Christmas off the list of federal holidays! I can't wait!

And this proposition is in my mind, a domestic threat to the constitution, which we must defend against.

Amending the Constitution is a threat to the Constitution?!?!

Amending the Constitution is a threat to the Constitution?!?!

Sort of like Prohibition

Like taking Christmas off the list of federal holidays! I can't wait!

Pagan holidays scare me.

If the ACLU is for it, it's PROBABLY something I should be against.

If you're going to burn the flag of my country, chance are you're not the kind of person who I'd want living here. Wrap yourself in it first.
At least they are only harming a piece of cloth … you endorsing harm against someone who is using their freedoms without harm to another is much more detestable.

If the ACLU is for it, it's PROBABLY something I should be against.

Exactly.

Only douchbags burn the flag them wrap themselves up in the freedoms provided by those who died defending that flag.

Reactionaries always try to hold countries back. We will unfortunately have to listen to this crap for another decade at least until a new generation comes into power. I suspect in 20 years we will see gay marriage and marijuana legalized and people talking about abortion alot less then today.

Yes, just look how much progess the left has made in the last 20 years.

Of the nine current members of the Supreme Court, seven were appointed by Republicans. In the last thirty-five years (since 1969) there have been thirteen appointments to the Supreme Court. Republican Presidents have made eleven of those appointments while Democratic Presidents have made two.

At the Circuit Court of Appeals level, the pattern remains the same. Since 1969, Republican Presidents have appointed 211 Judges to the Circuit Courts. Democrats have appointed 122. Since 1969, Republican Presidents have appointed 813 trial Judges to the District Court bench while Democrats have made 508 such appointments.

If the Federal Judiciary is comprised of a bunch of liberal activists, it is the GOP who put them there.

This data is as of 2004. In the past two years all judges have been appointed, of course, by the GOP.

Exactly.

Only douchbags burn the flag them wrap themselves up in the freedoms provided by those who died defending that flag.

I lost men under my command. Shut up about service.

Amending the Constitution is a threat to the Constitution?!?!
Sure turning it into a document that limits the people rather then the government as it was intended is defiantly a threat to the intent of the constitution

Exactly.

Only douchbags burn the flag them wrap themselves up in the freedoms provided by those who died defending that flag.
Sense when did we not have the right to be douchbags ?

I lost men under my command. Shut up about service.
Until you know anything about me, eat it.

Amending the Constitution is a threat to the Constitution?!?!

Of course. Why do you think it's so difficult? A 2/3rds majrity of congress AND ratification by 3/4ths of the states?

It's to protect the constitution from political whims. It's only failed once.

No, 'destruction of your own private property as a form of protest' = 'symbolic speech.' Again, you yourself have argued something which fundamentally is not speaking is protected when you claimed the written word was subject to the First Amendment. Why? The pencil, the paper and the writer don't speak to the reader, so why should it be protected either under your standard?

It's not America, it's a piece of cloth that's his.

The written word is speech because it is the articulation of words. I might also be liberal enough to consider it as being part of freedom of the press ( maybe).

And here lies the problem. To you the flag is "a piece of cloth" with no essential special value. Pretty much the same way that the crucifix on my wall is just a piece of wood. Most people disagree.

First of all literature is protected by the "freedom of the press" in the first Amendment ( which you would no doubt remember if you had ever read it). Second, the Supreme Court held that flag burning was a right by a 5-4 margin in 1989. If the same case was held today it would no doubt go 5-4 against flag burning ( what with Alito and all). But I find it interesting that you trust William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy more than you do 200 years of tradition and the will of the American people.

You don't understand either the issue of flag burning, or the 200 years of tradition and will of the American people.

Its not like people are on street corners setting fire to flags. It is a form of protest. And while the same thing may be said with different words or actions, it cannot be said with the same vehemence and tenor as burning the flag. It is not something that should be done, in my opinion, but it is something that all Americans have the right to do, if they so please.

Americas 200 years has spotty record and tradition. I mean, for the first 100 years, we had a tradition of enslaving fellow humans. For the first 140 years we had a tradition of not allowing women to vote. You see, over the past 200 years we have gradually extended some of the rights and protections of our citizens.

We do have a tradition, though, of dying and killing to protect our precious freedoms. That you would so flippantly sign them away is both frightening and disrespectful.

Until you know anything about me, eat it.

You made a normative, absolute statement. "Only douchebags..." To render your statement false, I have only to come up with one instance where that isn't true.

Funnily enough, I'm just that example.

So how does it feel calling thousands upon thousands of veterans "douchebags"?

Some patriotism.

Point of order:

Burning a flag one of the preferred ways of properly disposing of it once it has become tattered and worn.

US Flag Code: TITLE 4 > CHAPTER 1 > § 8 (k) http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html

It is therefore silly to write a constitutional amendment to prevent flag burning.
That little fact actually helps support the strongest argument against the criminalization of flag burning that I've ever seen. Here it is:

Let's say that flag burning is made illegal. So, one day a cop on the beat happens upon two people in adjacent backyards, each burning an American flag over a barrel of coals. Naturally the cop detains both offenders for questioning.

When asked why he was burning the flag, the first man says, "I was just respectfully retiring the flag after it had become worn." The cop lets him go.

The second man when asked responds, "I was burning the flag in protest! This country is going down the tubes!" He is arrested for flag desecration.

So, you have two people, doing identical things (i.e., burning the flag), but only one of them is arrested. And what is the only determining factor in who is arrested and who is set free? Their thoughts. One was doing it with thoughts of respect, while the other was doing it with thoughts of protest.

Arresting people based on their thoughts, not their actions. Banning not the method of expression, but the thought that is expressed. That, ladies and gentlemen, is thoughtcrime in action.

At least they are only harming a piece of cloth … you endorsing harm against someone who is using their freedoms without harm to another is much more detestable.

I'm not endorsing harm-it's a suggestion. Make a bigger statement about how much you hate America!

Even better, LEAVE!

Since when is this solely your country?

Since I was born here, it makes it MY country.

I'm not endorsing harm-it's a suggestion. Make a bigger statement about how much you hate America!

Even better, LEAVE!



Since I was born here, it makes it MY country.
If that is the qualificatiosn it could also be the flag burners country

I'm not endorsing harm-it's a suggestion. Make a bigger statement about how much you hate America!

Even better, LEAVE!



Since I was born here, it makes it MY country.

No, it makes it OUR country.

I'm not endorsing harm-it's a suggestion. Make a bigger statement about how much you hate America!

Even better, LEAVE!



Since I was born here, it makes it MY country.

It is legal to burn a flag in America.

Don't like it?

Leave.

That little fact actually helps support the strongest argument against the criminalization of flag burning that I've ever seen. Here it is:

Let's say that flag burning is made illegal. So, one day a cop on the beat happens upon two people in adjacent backyards, each burning an American flag over a barrel of coals. Naturally the cop detains both offenders for questioning.

When asked why he was burning the flag, the first man says, "I was just respectfully retiring the flag after it had become worn." The cop lets him go.

The second man when asked responds, "I was burning the flag in protest! This country is going down the tubes!" He is arrested for flag desecration.

So, you have two people, doing identical things (i.e., burning the flag), but only one of them is arrested. And what is the only determining factor in who is arrested and who is set free? Their thoughts. One was doing it with thoughts of respect, while the other was doing it with thoughts of protest.

Arresting people based on their thoughts, not their actions. Banning not the method of expression, but the thought that is expressed. That, ladies and gentlemen, is thoughtcrime in action.

Doubleplusgood. :)

Of the nine current members of the Supreme Court, seven were appointed by Republicans.
If the Federal Judiciary is comprised of a bunch of liberal activists, it is the GOP who put them there.

This data is as of 2004. In the past two years all judges have been appointed, of course, by the GOP.

Its true. If you are going to tell me that Harry Blackmun ( author of the Roe v. Wade decision), John Paul Stevens ( who wrote the dissent in Bush v. Gore), Sandra day O'connor ( affirmative action champion ) , Anthony Kennedy ( wrote the opinion to keep the partial birth abortion ban unconstitutional) and David Souter ( emminant domain man) are Conservative reactionaries I will laugh at you.

Here's the difference. Segregation was unconstitutional ( even though in 1896 the Supreme Court said it was.) Time and time again the court held that the precedent of segregation was valuable. They ignored the text of the document ( equal protection under law). IN 1954 they got some brains and struck down Plessy and segregation was legaly over. Flag burning is a similar story. Despite the text of the document the judges have gone overboard and put their own code of morality into interpretation. Either they undo the damage or we amend. End of story.

Despite? Its something protected by the document, not banned by it.

Of course. Why do you think it's so difficult? A 2/3rds majrity of congress AND ratification by 3/4ths of the states?

It's to protect the constitution from political whims. It's only failed once.


Every Amendment to the Constitution has been political in one way or another. Don't kid yourself.

That little fact actually helps support the strongest argument against the criminalization of flag burning that I've ever seen. Here it is:

Let's say that flag burning is made illegal. So, one day a cop on the beat happens upon two people in adjacent backyards, each burning an American flag over a barrel of coals. Naturally the cop detains both offenders for questioning.

When asked why he was burning the flag, the first man says, "I was just respectfully retiring the flag after it had become worn." The cop lets him go.

The second man when asked responds, "I was burning the flag in protest! This country is going down the tubes!" He is arrested for flag desecration.

So, you have two people, doing identical things (i.e., burning the flag), but only one of them is arrested. And what is the only determining factor in who is arrested and who is set free? Their thoughts. One was doing it with thoughts of respect, while the other was doing it with thoughts of protest.

Arresting people based on their thoughts, not their actions. Banning not the method of expression, but the thought that is expressed. That, ladies and gentlemen, is thoughtcrime in action.


Very good

Exactly.

Only douchbags burn the flag them wrap themselves up in the freedoms provided by those who died defending that flag.

Our men and women have died to defend the flag and the freedoms it represents. And that includes symbolic speech, like burning the flag

And here lies the problem. To you the flag is "a piece of cloth" with no essential special value. Pretty much the same way that the crucifix on my wall is just a piece of wood. Most people disagree.

No, both represent something, but both represent something far too strong to be damaged by a few people being jerks and setting fire to stuff. You might as well tell me that I couldn't chuck my TV down the stairs because lots of people own Sony products and it might offend them.

The flag represents something. A flag is a piece of cloth, and burning a flag does not detract from what that flag represents to you or anyone else. If this was about my right to burn your flag or your crucifix I'd understand it, but it's not.

We do have a tradition, though, of dying and killing to protect our precious freedoms. That you would so flippantly sign them away is both frightening and disrespectful.

The "freedom to burn a flag" did not exist in Constitutional law for the first 200 years after the first Amendment was adopted. I can and will support signing away a made up freedom that insults me.

The "freedom to burn a flag" did not exist in Constitutional law for the first 200 years after the first Amendment was adopted. I can and will support signing away a made up freedom that insults me.

And here the ultimate hubris is revealed, the equivocation of himself with "America". "It offends me".

Since when do administer justice based on your feelings?

Of the nine current members of the Supreme Court, seven were appointed by Republicans. In the last thirty-five years (since 1969) there have been thirteen appointments to the Supreme Court. Republican Presidents have made eleven of those appointments while Democratic Presidents have made two.

At the Circuit Court of Appeals level, the pattern remains the same. Since 1969, Republican Presidents have appointed 211 Judges to the Circuit Courts. Democrats have appointed 122. Since 1969, Republican Presidents have appointed 813 trial Judges to the District Court bench while Democrats have made 508 such appointments.

If the Federal Judiciary is comprised of a bunch of liberal activists, it is the GOP who put them there.

This data is as of 2004. In the past two years all judges have been appointed, of course, by the GOP.

Howard Dean made a similar argument in the Kelo opinion. Souter and Stevens have been considered liberal for a long time, yet Howard Dean said that it was a "Republican" Supreme Court that handed downt the Kelo opinion, when it was all the liberals plus one moderate that did it.

That little fact actually helps support the strongest argument against the criminalization of flag burning that I've ever seen. Here it is:

Let's say that flag burning is made illegal. So, one day a cop on the beat happens upon two people in adjacent backyards, each burning an American flag over a barrel of coals. Naturally the cop detains both offenders for questioning.

When asked why he was burning the flag, the first man says, "I was just respectfully retiring the flag after it had become worn." The cop lets him go.

The second man when asked responds, "I was burning the flag in protest! This country is going down the tubes!" He is arrested for flag desecration.

So, you have two people, doing identical things (i.e., burning the flag), but only one of them is arrested. And what is the only determining factor in who is arrested and who is set free? Their thoughts. One was doing it with thoughts of respect, while the other was doing it with thoughts of protest.

Arresting people based on their thoughts, not their actions. Banning not the method of expression, but the thought that is expressed. That, ladies and gentlemen, is thoughtcrime in action.


Reminds me of that hate crime legislation that liberals love so dearly. If I beat up a guy because I want to rob him its one punishment. If I beat up a guy because he is a gay, oh than thats a different punishment. Liberals love the idea of the thought crime.

The "freedom to burn a flag" did not exist in Constitutional law for the first 200 years after the first Amendment was adopted. I can and will support signing away a made up freedom that insults me.
Sense when did you have the right to not be inulted?

The "freedom to burn a flag" did not exist in Constitutional law for the first 200 years after the first Amendment was adopted. I can and will support signing away a made up freedom that insults me.

Sure you will, because you have no real appreciation for the basic idea of freedom and liberty. You probably would sign away all manner of freedoms you disagree with or that don't apply to you personally. And while we're at it, why shouldn't the government listen to your phone conversations or peek in on your computer? If you have nothing to hide then what is the problem, right?

Sense when did you have the right to not be inulted?

Since he is the end-all be-all of what America "truly" is.

It is legal to burn a flag in America.

Don't like it?

Leave.

Nice try. The way to go about getting what you want is by Amending the Constitution or appointing judges who will overturn the precedent. Seems like we are working hard on both. Leave? You wish!

The Onion, of course, has already taken a position on this issue. And it is, as usual, just as funny as it is true.

Man Who Fought For Americans' Rights Demands Americans Stop Exercising Their Rights
August 12, 1998 | Issue 34•02

WASHINGTON, DC—Speaking before the U.S. Senate Tuesday, Herbert Macallum, a retired Wichita, KS, insurance salesman and Navy veteran who fought during World War II to protect the inalienable rights of all Americans, demanded that U.S. citizens stop exercising those rights.

"As someone who risked his life for this country, I am infuriated when I see protesters exercising their First Amendment rights by burning the U.S. flag," Macallum told legislators during a Senate debate over a proposed anti-flag-burning amendment. "I didn't fight the Japanese at Midway to save democracy for a bunch of long-haired jerks who want to freely express their views."

"I love the Constitution, and I nearly lost my life defending it," Macallum added. "That's why it angers me so much to see malcontents exploiting it for their own purposes."

Macallum is president of the Kansas Veterans' Council for Liberty & Restraint, one of a number of veterans' organizations calling upon Congress to pass anti-rights-use legislation. Under the provisions of the proposed legislation, any U.S. citizen convicted of exercising his or her Constitutional rights in a manner deemed controversial would face a fine and/or imprisonment.

Said KVCLR member Walter Mickleson, 81: "Wherever you look today, you see people using the First Amendment to openly criticize or protest the U.S. government. I don't think that's what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. And I, for one, didn't storm the beach at Normandy so I could see America dragged through the mud."

"Men gave their lives for the U.S. Constitution," WWII veteran Robert Schumer said. "I'm sure they would weep if they were alive to see it being followed so shamelessly. If you ask me, protesters who object to our government should not be allowed to vote."

KVCLR spokespersons cite such "societal ills" as flag-burning, pornography, public assembly for the purpose of protest, and the pursuit of "certain forms of happiness" as their motivation for founding the organization.

"The disorder that plagues American society today is rooted in our gross indulgence in civil liberties," said KVCLR treasurer and ex-Army pilot Donald Morrow, 79. "Servicemen fought and died for this great nation, and servicemen know that discipline, obedience and blind faith in one's superiors and country are the key to domestic harmony. Civil disobedience is disrespectful to our government and has no place in a democratic society."

"I firebombed Dresden in 1945, and I lost a son in Vietnam," Morrow added. "What have protesters ever done for this country?"

Clarence Johnson, a retired Marine lieutenant who served in the Korean War, agreed.

"When I entered the United States armed forces, I gave up my constitutional rights in order to be a soldier," Johnson said. "It was one of the proudest days of my life. I had never exercised my rights much before then, anyway. Let me tell you, if you'd fought and seen friends die to protect the God-given rights of all Americans, you'd want to keep them from exercising them, too."

Source is here (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28952).

Despite? Its something protected by the document, not banned by it.

yes despite. The text of the Constitution is not relavent when it comes to Flag burning. It does not protect it or ban it. This is my point.

Our men and women have died to defend the flag and the freedoms it represents. And that includes symbolic speech, like burning the flag


Symbolism is not relavent when it comes to the text of the Constitution.

No, both represent something, but both represent something far too strong to be damaged by a few people being jerks and setting fire to stuff. You might as well tell me that I couldn't chuck my TV down the stairs because lots of people own Sony products and it might offend them.

The flag represents something. A flag is a piece of cloth, and burning a flag does not detract from what that flag represents to you or anyone else. If this was about my right to burn your flag or your crucifix I'd understand it, but it's not.


It is my flag because I am an American. When you burn a flag you insult America. I have the right not to be tolerant of that.

So how does it feel calling thousands upon thousands of veterans "douchebags"?

Some patriotism.
What kind of vastly idiotic statement is that? How in even the most warped way can you twist what I said into insulting thousands upon thousands of veterans?

You say you had men die in your service, I say bullshit.

No leader I knew in my ten years of service was that dumb, and I knew some fools in my time.

And here the ultimate hubris is revealed, the equivocation of himself with "America". "It offends me".

Since when do administer justice based on your feelings?

The basis of law is morality. It offends my sense of morality to see the symbol of my country lit on fire in disrespect.

yes despite. The text of the Constitution is not relavent when it comes to Flag burning. It does not protect it or ban it. This is my point.

Your point being distinctly undermined by the laws and courts of your own country, which currently say the Constitution does protect flag burning. All court decisions have stated that symbolic speech is still speech and is still protected. You're just ignoring it and acting as if the Amendment has already passed.

The "freedom to burn a flag" did not exist in Constitutional law for the first 200 years after the first Amendment was adopted. I can and will support signing away a made up freedom that insults me.
Guess what sweetie pie, it offends me when people burn flags too.

It offends me a heck of a lot more when people come onto the internet and start telling me about how others freedoms insult them. At this very moment, your freedom of speech is incredibly insulting to me and my love of freedom. But I will RESPECT your right to say what you want, despite how vehemently i disagree, because it is constitutionally protected.

Also, for the first, oh, i'd say 150-180 years of American Constitutional law, the prohibitions in the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, and the usage of the 14th Ammendment is a bit dubious in allowing for the Doctrine of Incorporation, through what is known as Substantive Due Process. I suppose you also feel that altho Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, it is okay for the Sovereign State of New York, or Texas, or Arkansas, or Oklahoma, or any of the other remaining 46 states to abridge the freedom of speech?

Sense when did you have the right to not be inulted?

Everybody gets offended by SOMETHING. Nothing would be legal if we went that route. I say if this actually gets serious momentum we should all burn a flag in protest.

Your point being distinctly undermined by the laws and courts of your own country, which currently say the Constitution does protect flag burning. All court decisions have stated that symbolic speech is still speech and is still protected. You're just ignoring it and acting as if the Amendment has already passed.


No I am not. I disagree with the Court precedent. Has anybody figured this out yet? It is bad precedent. It is not based on the text of the Constitution. In 1945 every court decision of the past supported segregation. Would you blindly follow that?

Symbolism is not relavent when it comes to the text of the Constitution.

You can keep typing that til your fngers fall off, it'll never make it true.

What kind of vastly idiotic statement is that? How in even the most warped way can you twist what I said into insulting thousands upon thousands of veterans?

You say you had men die in your service, I say bullshit.

No leader I knew in my ten years of service was that dumb, and I knew some fools in my time.

Was your statement a normative absolutist, and unqualified statement or not?

Reasons to oppose laws against flag burning:

1) According to the flag code, when an USian flag becomes unfit for use it is to be burned. A flag burner sees the flag as unfit for use regardless of physical condition and therefore considers it a patriotic responsibility to burn it.

2) According to the flag code, when an USian flag becomes unfit for use it is to be burned. How then would we discern between appropriate and inappropriate burning.

3) What if I were to burn a 4th of July paper plate with a picture of the flag on it? What if I were to burn a photograph of an actual flag? What if it were the size of a standard flag? What if I were to burn a piece of cloth identical to a USian flag but with the words "This is a US flag" overlaid on the bottom stripe? (Thus invalidating it as a flag since the flag doesn't contain said words). When the bottom stripe burned off would it suddenly turn into a flag if it wasn't before?

4) If someone burns a flag and then wants to do it again or has a change of heart, he/she must go out and buy a new one, thus stimulating the economy.

5) The sight of a burning flag can inspire patriotism from someone who would normally be ambivelant due to the offensive nature of the action.

Guess what sweetie pie, it offends me when people burn flags too.

It offends me a heck of a lot more when people come onto the internet and start telling me about how others freedoms insult them. At this very moment, your freedom of speech is incredibly insulting to me and my love of freedom. But I will RESPECT your right to say what you want, despite how vehemently i disagree, because it is constitutionally protected.

Also, for the first, oh, i'd say 150-180 years of American Constitutional law, the prohibitions in the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, and the usage of the 14th Ammendment is a bit dubious in allowing for the Doctrine of Incorporation, through what is known as Substantive Due Process. I suppose you also feel that altho Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, it is okay for the Sovereign State of New York, or Texas, or Arkansas, or Oklahoma, or any of the other remaining 46 states to abridge the freedom of speech?

Well you see you missed the boat. You and I agree that I have a right to freedom of speech. We do not agree on whether there actualy is a right to burn the U.S. flag found in the text of the Constitution. It was a bad comparison. Also, I don't know of any state that has a Congress so I don't see what the first Amendment has to do with states....If a legislature counts as a Congress than does the Governor count as a President? Is Governor Haley Barbour gonna declare war on Iran? Give me a break.

No I am not. I disagree with the Court precedent. Has anybody figured this out yet? It is bad precedent. It is not based on the text of the Constitution. In 1945 every court decision of the past supported segregation. Would you blindly follow that?

You are comparing flag burning with segregation?

Reasons to oppose laws against flag burning:

1) According to the flag code, when an USian flag becomes unfit for use it is to be burned. A flag burner sees the flag as unfit for use regardless of physical condition and therefore considers it a patriotic responsibility to burn it.

2) According to the flag code, when an USian flag becomes unfit for use it is to be burned. How then would we discern between appropriate and inappropriate burning.

3) What if I were to burn a 4th of July paper plate with a picture of the flag on it? What if I were to burn a photograph of an actual flag? What if it were the size of a standard flag? What if I were to burn a piece of cloth identical to a USian flag but with the words "This is a US flag" overlaid on the bottom stripe? (Thus invalidating it as a flag since the flag doesn't contain said words). When the bottom stripe burned off would it suddenly turn into a flag if it wasn't before?

4) If someone burns a flag and then wants to do it again or has a change of heart, he/she must go out and buy a new one, thus stimulating the economy.

5) The sight of a burning flag can inspire patriotism from someone who would normally be ambivelant due to the offensive nature of the action.

There is no such thing as a USian. We're Americans.

You can keep typing that til your fngers fall off, it'll never make it true.

You can read the document until you go blind you won't find any symbolism.

You are comparing flag burning with segregation?

Both were propped up by people who loved to talk about Supreme Court Precedent.

The basis of law is morality. It offends my sense of morality to see the symbol of my country lit on fire in disrespect.


Umm sorry but no. Morality (and ethics) have nothing to do whatsoever with laws. Morality and ethics are formed completely by an individual and are subjective. The basis of laws is what is good for society. Murder is not illegal because it is immoral, murder is illegal because if people go around murdering each other, society doesn't work too well at all.

Both were propped up by people who loved to talk about Supreme Court Precedent.

I'm curious, what penalty do you believe should be given out to flag burners?

No I am not. I disagree with the Court precedent. Has anybody figured this out yet? It is bad precedent. It is not based on the text of the Constitution.

It is indeed based on the text of the constitution, specifically regarding freedom of expression. Unless you can get me a Founding Father on this site to say that when they wrote 'speech' they ment 'the spoken word and nothing else,' it's entirely valid to extend 'speech' to such things as clothing with slogans, or burning flags; in other words, to mean 'expression.'

In 1945 every court decision of the past supported segregation. Would you blindly follow that?

No, because it abridged the rights of the people. Much like this Amendment abridges the right of the people to dispose of their private property in whatever safe fashion they please, and their right to protest via symbolic speech.

To throw your point back, there is also no support in the original constitution for women being allowed to vote, shall we blame that on 'activist judges' too?

I'm curious, what penalty do you believe should be given out to flag burners?

Making flags!

There is no such thing as a USian. We're Americans.

If that's the only part of my post anyone disagrees with I will be quite happy.

Reminds me of that hate crime legislation that liberals love so dearly. If I beat up a guy because I want to rob him its one punishment. If I beat up a guy because he is a gay, oh than thats a different punishment. Liberals love the idea of the thought crime.
I'll tread carefully here, since it's easy to sound hypocritical, but there is a difference between these two situations.

Flag burning is a form of symbolic speech which is an essential component of the right to free expression. So banning the thoughts expressed through such nonviolent speech can be considered thoughtcrime.

Hate crimes, on the other hand, are meant to combat violent expressions of an idea. Yes, it is punishing one's thoughts. But it is punishing thoughts that are expressed solely through violent means, such as assault or murder.

The rationale for the increased punishment is explained well by this court decision (excerpt from Wikipedia article on hate crimes):
When it enacted the Hate Crimes Act of 2000, the New York State Legislature included legislative findings that offer a survey of the various arguments for hate crime legislation. The legislature specifically found that:

"Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity."

Now, I know that this argument can be applied to flag burning, saying that such desecration creates such offense that it too stresses the fabric of civilized society. But that is simply not true. Flag desecration is strictly non-violent. Hate crimes are not. So, it is acceptable to place greater sanctions on such violent crimes in this case, without becoming the thought police.

ACLU, around since the Founding, defending the Constitution

versus

republican congress, around since, well, fascism

Who am I going to follow? I think it's obvious.

I'm personally against the idea of hate-crimes myself.

First of all literature is protected by the "freedom of the press" in the first Amendment ( which you would no doubt remember if you had ever read it). Second, the Supreme Court held that flag burning was a right by a 5-4 margin in 1989. If the same case was held today it would no doubt go 5-4 against flag burning ( what with Alito and all). But I find it interesting that you trust William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy more than you do 200 years of tradition and the will of the American people.
Pre-law, but I've never read the first amendment.
Anyway, what 200 years of tradition said that you could ban flag burning, and the what is protected by the constitution is hardly to be determined by the "will of the people", as I said earlier, if the bill of rights only protected those who were supported by the general public, it would hardly be needed now would it.
And, you still haven't given a legitimate reason it should be banned.

Umm sorry but no. Morality (and ethics) have nothing to do whatsoever with laws. Morality and ethics are formed completely by an individual and are subjective. The basis of laws is what is good for society. Murder is not illegal because it is immoral, murder is illegal because if people go around murdering each other, society doesn't work too well at all.


Well if we executed every criminal that would be great for society but it would not be moral. Those who claim that laws should not be based on morality or the ones who allow such atrocities to take place. Read some history. Moral relativism has a sketchy history.

If we outlaw flag burning, should we outlaw dropping it?

I'm curious, what penalty do you believe should be given out to flag burners?

I don't know. I would like to see that left up to the States. For me, I would like to see them thrown in Jail for the night and fined.

It is my flag because I am an American. When you burn a flag you insult America. I have the right not to be tolerant of that.

If you are intolerant of insults to America, I have no idea what you are doing on an NS forum. In many threads, the USA, or her leaders, or her actions, or her principles are insulted. You can be intolerant of that by posting a negative reply. You cannot be intolerant of that by forbidding the insults.

Your point about bad precedent, though, is surprisingly good. The Court is made up of humans, men and women, not all knowing Gods. The Court should not be blindly followed. Since you think symbolic action is not protected, I have a few questions. What about silence? Is that protected? For instance, a student refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Or moments of silence. What about symbolic actions. For instance, the classic: :upyours: Certainly that image says a lot that words cant or dont sufficiently express. Otherwise why would we have emoticons. Hell are emoticons on the internet protected? I'm offended by the shooting smileys. Ought we pass an Ammendment banning them? What if 70% of the population is offended by them? And god forbid what if my :headbang: were taken away. It really very clearly expresses how im feeling at this moment.

And please please, no matter how it upsets you, dont take away my fluffle. :fluffle:

You can read the document until you go blind you won't find any symbolism.
If you know anyhting about the First Amendment, you know that "freedom of speech" is not restricted to literal vocal speech. It is better referred to as "freedom of expression", which protects any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information, ideas, or opinions, regardless of the medium used. This includes symbolic expression.

You can read the document until you go blind you won't find any symbolism.

Or any references to the United States Flag. ;)

It is indeed based on the text of the constitution, specifically regarding freedom of expression.

To throw your point back, there is also no support in the original constitution for women being allowed to vote, shall we blame that on 'activist judges' too?

Freedom of Expression is not found in the text of the Constitution. Go ahead. look for it. ( wow ).

Women got the right to vote by amendment!!!!!!!!! not judges

( double wow )

I think you need to do some reading. Seriously.

After the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a Constitutional amendment to criminalize any "physical desecration" of the American flag, the ACLU urged the Senate to reject it when it comes to a floor vote this week. If adopted, it would be the first time the Constitution has been used to restrict First Amendment freedoms.

"The right to voice a dissenting viewpoint - no matter how unpopular - is a bedrock principle of America," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The First Amendment is most important when it protects speech that is controversial and repugnant."

If you are an American now is the time to contact your Congressman or Senator.

http://www.aclu.org/


tough call...while i want free speech,and support someones right to burn the flag,do i get a pass for curbing the shit that does?

cause it would be really hard for me to refrain from violently going mental and exercising my right to free speech..in the form of violence...while i agree it is not the same..and burning a flag..does not technically hurt anyone...i know people that died for that flag,i know people that died so others have the the right to burn it..so i guess...burn away..

i would advise not doing that near me though.

while i feel it is your right,and should not be against the law..thats just plain silly...if you need to make a point....you do not need to burn the flag that hundreds of thousands have died for..if even for decorum,or a sense of dignity to the thousands that died to give you the right..i guess..all i am asking is a bit of respect or dignity.

if not...oh well,you showed yourself to have no class or respect,and i will treat you accordingly.

it should be legal to burn the flag,but it should never happen..not to make some fucking point...there are other ways to make a point...that i may listen too..that i wont..ever!

It is my flag because I am an American. When you burn a flag you insult America. I have the right not to be tolerant of that.

I'm sure other things that people do insult America. Are you saying that anything a person does that you view to be insulting to this country should be outlawed?

[QUOTE=Rhaomi]I'll tread carefully here, since it's easy to sound hypocritical, but there is a difference between these two situations.

Flag burning is a form of symbolic speech which is an essential component of the right to free expression. So banning the thoughts expressed through such nonviolent speech can be considered thoughtcrime.

Hate crimes, on the other hand, are meant to combat violent expressions of an idea. Yes, it is punishing one's thoughts. But it is punishing thoughts that are expressed solely through violent means, such as assault or murder.
QUOTE]

" right to free expression". Where is that in the text of the Constitution?

So.....punishing thoughts is ok if it is linked to violance? You better tread carefully, I see a slippery slope coming.

I'm sure other things that people do insult America. Are you saying that anything a person does that you view to be insulting to this country should be outlawed?

Yep, same thing I said. Should we outlaw flag dropping?

I don't know. I would like to see that left up to the States. For me, I would like to see them thrown in Jail for the night and fined.

Why, for expressing their opinion?

In truth it's just a flag that symbolizes many different things and your interpretation differs from others. Some see the flag as a corrupt, malice, imperial waving steampile. Others see it as the beacon of the modern world.

You can't suppress ones ideas if they aren't threatneing or provoke violence.

[QUOTE=Rhaomi]I'll tread carefully here, since it's easy to sound hypocritical, but there is a difference between these two situations.

Flag burning is a form of symbolic speech which is an essential component of the right to free expression. So banning the thoughts expressed through such nonviolent speech can be considered thoughtcrime.

Hate crimes, on the other hand, are meant to combat violent expressions of an idea. Yes, it is punishing one's thoughts. But it is punishing thoughts that are expressed solely through violent means, such as assault or murder.
QUOTE]

" right to free expression". Where is that in the text of the Constitution?

So.....punishing thoughts is ok if it is linked to violance? You better tread carefully, I see a slippery slope coming.

So can I put a flag up in my yard and commence verbally assaulting said flag with no repercussions?

Well you see you missed the boat. You and I agree that I have a right to freedom of speech. We do not agree on whether there actualy is a right to burn the U.S. flag found in the text of the Constitution. It was a bad comparison. Also, I don't know of any state that has a Congress so I don't see what the first Amendment has to do with states....If a legislature counts as a Congress than does the Governor count as a President? Is Governor Haley Barbour gonna declare war on Iran? Give me a break.

I'm sorry, I wasnt clear enough. Or maybe I was.
The first Ammendment doesn't have anything to do with the states. Thats why, up until the 1920s, states frequently limited their citizens freedoms of Press, Religion, and Speech. Around then, though, the Supreme Court began using the 14th Ammendment ( All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1) to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Thus, states could no longer limit the freedoms of Speech Press and Religion however they liked.

ACLU, around since the Founding, defending the Constitution

versus

republican congress, around since, well, fascism

Who am I going to follow? I think it's obvious.


The Republican Congress has been elected ( 6 times in a row)

The ACLU relies on unelected judges to accomplish political goals.
Also, the ACLU was founded in 1917 ( the founding? What?)

Freedom of Expression is not found in the text of the Constitution. Go ahead. look for it. ( wow ).

Women got the right to vote by amendment!!!!!!!!! not judges

( double wow )

I think you need to do some reading. Seriously.

Wrong. Some states(due to court decisions) alowwed women to vote, others didn't. It became an amendment to apply the law uniformly to those states that did not already allow women to vote. Obviously, for it to become an amendment, 3/4ths of the states had to already support it.

You are comparing flag burning with segregation?
Well, to be fair, I started it. (Trying to show that what a majority of people want does not mean that it is fair, just, or constitutional)

Well if we executed every criminal that would be great for society but it would not be moral. Those who claim that laws should not be based on morality or the ones who allow such atrocities to take place. Read some history. Moral relativism has a sketchy history.


How the hell would that be good for our society? It would cost much much much more and people who can still contribute to society after their sentances would be dead. Morals sure are relative. It was quite moral in some killer's minds for them to slaughter people, should we make it legal to kill people if you believe that it is something that isn't wrong?

Freedom of Expression is not found in the text of the Constitution. Go ahead. look for it. ( wow ).

You'll find that's how 'freedom of speech' is read, citing numerous court precidents about artwork, clothing, sculpture and so on. You can arrange flowers to say 'screw America' when they grow and be fully protected by the First Amendment, even though it certainly doesn't mention flower arranging. This is because rational people have interpreted 'speech' in the First Amendment to mean 'expression,' as my Law Dictionary entry made quite clear.

Women got the right to vote by amendment!!!!!!!!! not judges

So? They got the freedom to vote from a few priveleged people making a ruling, does it really matter if they were judges, congressmen or winos?

I think you need to do some reading. Seriously.

I think you need to adjust your attitude before I forumban you. Seriously.

Your point about bad precedent, though, is surprisingly good. The Court is made up of humans, men and women, not all knowing Gods. The Court should not be blindly followed. Since you think symbolic action is not protected, I have a few questions. What about silence? Is that protected? For instance, a student refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Or moments of silence. What about symbolic actions. For instance, the classic: :upyours: Certainly that image says a lot that words cant or dont sufficiently express. Otherwise why would we have emoticons. Hell are emoticons on the internet protected? I'm offended by the shooting smileys. Ought we pass an Ammendment banning them? What if 70% of the population is offended by them? And god forbid what if my :headbang: were taken away. It really very clearly expresses how im feeling at this moment.

And please please, no matter how it upsets you, dont take away my fluffle. :fluffle:


None of those actions ( or lack of actions) have anything to do with the first amendment's text supporting or forbidding them. It just is not relavent.

If you know anyhting about the First Amendment, you know that "freedom of speech" is not restricted to literal vocal speech. It is better referred to as "freedom of expression", which protects any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information, ideas, or opinions, regardless of the medium used. This includes symbolic expression.


"Better". There is a good example of Judicial activism. Changing the simple word "speech" into " any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information, ideas, or opinions, regardless of the medium used."

Nothing to do with the text. Everything to do with your opinion of what you wish it spelled out.

None of those actions ( or lack of actions) have anything to do with the first amendment's text supporting or forbidding them. It just is not relavent.

I thought you were saying that symbolic speech is not covered? Refusing to say the Pledge of Allegience could certainly be offensive. Sounds like these examples are relavent to me.

The Republican Congress has been elected ( 6 times in a row)

The ACLU relies on unelected judges to accomplish political goals.
Also, the ACLU was founded in 1917 ( the founding? What?)

I know, but I am elucidating on what I feel the notions of the Marxist-Leninist majority of Forum posters are.

Most of them feel the ACLU has only the Constitution's best interest at heart, when in reality they were Founded by communists, and virtually, with a couple exceptions, all of the cases they have been involved with, I support the other side.

Guess what sweetie pie, it offends me when people burn flags too.

It offends me a heck of a lot more when people come onto the internet and start telling me about how others freedoms insult them. At this very moment, your freedom of speech is incredibly insulting to me and my love of freedom. But I will RESPECT your right to say what you want, despite how vehemently i disagree, because it is constitutionally protected.

Also, for the first, oh, i'd say 150-180 years of American Constitutional law, the prohibitions in the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, and the usage of the 14th Ammendment is a bit dubious in allowing for the Doctrine of Incorporation, through what is known as Substantive Due Process. I suppose you also feel that altho Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, it is okay for the Sovereign State of New York, or Texas, or Arkansas, or Oklahoma, or any of the other remaining 46 states to abridge the freedom of speech?

not to pick at you...but do you feel the same about the second amendment?

cause if you dont...then they are all bullshit,and as much as i despise some twit burning the flag my family has died for..it is their right...so if you want to pick and choose what "rights" are rights..then i say whats the fucking point...might as well have a king again.

and puhleeze dont drag out the tired argument about the definition of militia...wiser men then anyone here have said...forever..that it is not defined as militia(per se...state run)but individual....whats good for the goose is good for the gander i suppose....no ...it is period!

Anyway, what 200 years of tradition said that you could ban flag burning, and the what is protected by the constitution is hardly to be determined by the "will of the people", as I said earlier, if the bill of rights only protected those who were supported by the general public, it would hardly be needed now would it.


The 200 years of tradition where the ability of a state to ban flag burning existed. The 200 years where burning a flag was not equal to the act of "speech".

None of those actions ( or lack of actions) have anything to do with the first amendment's text supporting or forbidding them. It just is not relavent.

Is sign language 'speech'?

Or any references to the United States Flag. ;)

Exactly! The first Amendment has nothing to do with the flag at all! Now you got it!

I know, but I am elucidating on what I feel the notions of the Marxist-Leninist majority of Forum posters are.

Most of them feel the ACLU has only the Constitution's best interest at heart, when in reality they were Founded by communists, and virtually, with a couple exceptions, all of the cases they have been involved with, I support the other side.

The 1950's called.

They want their hysteria back.

" right to free expression". Where is that in the text of the Constitution?
"Freedom of speech" as guaranteed by the First Amendment is generally understood to mean protection of all forms of expression, and is best referred to as "freedom of expression".

So.....punishing thoughts is ok if it is linked to violance? You better tread carefully, I see a slippery slope coming.
When it comes to physical violence, no one has freedom of expression. My right to swing my arms ends at the tip of your nose. So there's no slippery slope here. Under this argument, hate *speech* is perfectly alright. Only violent hate crimes are punished.

I'm sure other things that people do insult America. Are you saying that anything a person does that you view to be insulting to this country should be outlawed?

Yes.

So, I wonder what Barrygoldwater would have to say about those "activist" Judges who made the Brown v. Board of education ruling, or desegrated interstate busses.

Why, for expressing their opinion?

In truth it's just a flag that symbolizes many different things and your interpretation differs from others. Some see the flag as a corrupt, malice, imperial waving steampile. Others see it as the beacon of the modern world.

You can't suppress ones ideas if they aren't threatneing or provoke violence.


Yes I can. With this amendment.

[QUOTE=Barrygoldwater]

So can I put a flag up in my yard and commence verbally assaulting said flag with no repercussions?
The repercussions would be you would look like an idiot.

"Better". There is a good example of Judicial activism. Changing the simple word "speech" into " any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information, ideas, or opinions, regardless of the medium used."

Nothing to do with the text. Everything to do with your opinion of what you wish it spelled out.
Under this argument, it would be constitutional to arrest someone for shaking their head "no" to the question "Do you agree with the President?" Hey, it's not verbal speech, so it's not protected by the First Amendment! Right?

Do you honestly believe that the Founding Fathers only had verbal speech in mind?

[QUOTE=Ferrum Testudo]
The repercussions would be you would look like an idiot.

Answer the question. If I use only speech to desecrate the flag, am I protected or not?

Exactly! The first Amendment has nothing to do with the flag at all! Now you got it!

Yes. You support the addition of an amendment to the constitution that restricts the rights of the people. You want to do it to protect a flag. A flag that the framers of this country(who were remarkably deliberate when they wrote that document and the Bill of Rights) didn't even bother to mention?

DO you, someone who obviously takes a keen interest in the COnstitution believe it's appropriate for a document designed to limit government and guarantee certain rights of the people be used to take one away?

Wrong. Some states(due to court decisions) alowwed women to vote, others didn't. It became an amendment to apply the law uniformly to those states that did not already allow women to vote. Obviously, for it to become an amendment, 3/4ths of the states had to already support it.

Indeed. That is what I was talking about. Many states did pass laws to allow ( or not) women to vote pre-1920. The point was that legislating from the bench was not needed.

Yes I can. With this amendment.

I'm sure you'd fit right in with Stalinist ideals of "If I don't like it, I make it go away, and the happy comes back!"

So you support suppressing ideas and expression?

Yes.

Wow. I wish I had the same protection. If someone calls me a nasty name then off to jail with them!

None of those actions ( or lack of actions) have anything to do with the first amendment's text supporting or forbidding them. It just is not relavent.

Your point was, i thought, that flag burning had nothing to do with the first ammendment's (learn to spell) text supporting or forbidding it making it relevant (again, note the spelling).

Apparently I missed your point all together. Please, try again to explain to me why flag burning should be banned, and why it is not or ought not be protected speech? (Because, in case I was again unclear, by your standards, all those actions or lack of actions are also unprotected and ought to be banned if they offend someone)

[QUOTE=GMC Military Arms]You'll find that's how 'freedom of speech' is read, citing numerous court precidents about artwork, clothing, sculpture and so on. You can arrange flowers to say 'screw America' when they grow and be fully protected by the First Amendment, even though it certainly doesn't mention flower arranging. This is because rational people have interpreted 'speech' in the First Amendment to mean 'expression,' as my Law Dictionary entry made quite clear.
QUOTE]


Once again, sombody comes around with the "precedent" argument. Supreme Court precedent supported Segregation for 58 years. Supreme court precedent supported the execution of minors until last year.

I know, but I am elucidating on what I feel the notions of the Marxist-Leninist majority of Forum posters are.

Most of them feel the ACLU has only the Constitution's best interest at heart, when in reality they were Founded by communists, and virtually, with a couple exceptions, all of the cases they have been involved with, I support the other side.

Oh, generally I disagree with the ACLU. But in this instance, they are correct. And when someone is right, they are right.

I thought you were saying that symbolic speech is not covered? Refusing to say the Pledge of Allegience could certainly be offensive. .

Refusing to say the pledge is fine.

Is sign language 'speech'?

yes.

Barry G., how old are you? You have such wisdom.

yes.

It is not verbal speech though. Which I believe is one of your arguements that only verbal speech is covered by the 1st amendment.

Indeed. That is what I was talking about. Many states did pass laws to allow ( or not) women to vote pre-1920. The point was that legislating from the bench was not needed.

The Supreme Court couldn't legislate it! The constitution protected the rights of the states to decide within themselves who could and couldn't vote(within the restriction of the Constitution). These decisions had to be made by state courts and state governing bodies. The federal courts had no jurisdiction. Because of the constitution! That's why it took a constitutional amendment to make women's right to vote nationally recognized. That's why the Supreme Court could not do anything about it. Because of the COnstitution.

But the Supreme COurt CAN and DOES decide what falls within the realm of free speech because that is their job; to interpret the Constitution.