NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

This is what I say. Brown V. Board was fighting judicial activism. Plessy v. ferguson established segregation's legality and this was upheld by precedent for decades. Only with the Brown decision did the justices come back to the text of the Constitution.

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?
I pop my head in here.
I see you.
Read your post.
Agree.
Leave.

Yes.

Ah, so you support repealing the First Amendment. Got it.

At least I assume that's what you're saying, since the First Amendment has absolutely no point if it does not protect one's right to criticize one's country.

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?

no no no. Shaking your head is not speech. It has nothing to do with anything on this thread. I never said things had to be "verbal". Nothing in the amendment mentions "verbal". It says speech. Thats all. If you burn somthing it is not speech. The end.

[QUOTE=Barrygoldwater]

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


Yes, because you have freedom of speech.

[QUOTE=Ferrum Testudo]


Yes, because you have freedom of speech.

Would it offend you?

This is what I say. Brown V. Board was fighting judicial activism. Plessy v. ferguson established segregation's legality and this was upheld by precedent for decades. Only with the Brown decision did the justices come back to the text of the Constitution.

Overturning Plessy with Brown was to extend civil rights. You are saying that flag burning is wrong and should be overturned. Are peoples rights being violated by seeing an American flag burn? Stopping people from burning them now, that would be a violation of peoples right to express thier opinion. Insulting you may find it but people can still do it.

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!

Well, I have to admit, I am a lot less passionate about the Second Ammendment than i am about the First. But please hear me out.
I think that it is fine for families out in the MidWest or South to own guns to shoot dear or rabbits or quails or whatever. I think its okay for families in cities to possess a gun for protection. I do, however, think that it should not be legal or easy for someone to buy enough munitions for a small army and then resell it illegally on the streets to criminals, children, gang members, and so forth. (Also, child safety features arent a bad idea). If a criminal gets a hold of a gun, he or she could be lethal to others or him/herself. If a criminal gets a hold of a newspaper column, or megaphone, its not nearly as dangerous. Hence why it is allowable (in my mind) for a little more regulation of guns than there is of speech.

I hope this answer doesnt cause you to disregard everything else I've already written on this forum.

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?

many amendments take rights away from the people. We could not elect Bill Clinton to a third term because of the Constitution, we can't give aid and comfort to al-queda because of the Constitution, and we can't buy and sell slaves ( once a right) under our Constitution.

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?

Certain ones. I don't like racism or communism either you know.

I never said things had to be "verbal". Nothing in the amendment mentions "verbal".

You're right, nothing in the amendment mentions "verbal." Which is why all of us kept disagreeing with you when you repeatedly and explicitly stated that "speech" referred only to verbal expression. I'm not at all sure how you can claim you "never said" something you unambiguously said multiple times...

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.

So? The Supreme Court also ended segregation in schools with Brown v. Board of Education, with further court decisions and Federal laws following that. But more to the point, segregation was about denying rights. Interpreting the 'speech' section to refer to 'expression' guarantees rights, in fields like sculpture, music, art and such that obviously extend from the same basis as free speech and belong under the same aegis.

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)

great point...majority rule is mob rule..and i agree with you on that

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?

no no no. Shaking your head is not speech. It has nothing to do with anything on this thread. I never said things had to be "verbal". Nothing in the amendment mentions "verbal". It says speech. Thats all. If you burn somthing it is not speech. The end.

Excuse me while a perform a little quote jujitsu to effect a better comparison, for the sake of argument:

It says speech. Thats all. If you burn somthing it is not speech.

Your then say that because flag burning is not speech, it is not protected by the First Amendment and can be criminalized. You also said:

Shaking your head is not speech.

So what I said is still valid. Under your argument, body language such as nodding or giving a thumbs down is not protected by the First Amendment, just like flag burning is not, and may be subject to criminal penalties.

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)


For the 10th time.....flag burning is not speech. Speech is the articulation of words to express ideas. It is one of many forms of expression.

I want to ban it because I feel that it insults all that America stands for.

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


If you can point out where I said that only verbal speech is protected I will be shocked.

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.
You have just insulted every mime on planet Earth. Way to go.

I'll burn a flag the day that bill is passed. Preferably in a large group of like minded flag burners and with a quick car that I can get away in.

Overturning Plessy with Brown was to extend civil rights. You are saying that flag burning is wrong and should be overturned. Are peoples rights being violated by seeing an American flag burn? Stopping people from burning them now, that would be a violation of peoples right to express thier opinion. Insulting you may find it but people can still do it.

Flag burning is not a right that is found in the text of the Constitution. The right to equal protection under the law is. I don't see where you are going with this Brown v. Board of Ed. thing....

If you can point out where I said that only verbal speech is protected I will be shocked.

So would you support my right to fly a flag with 'BULLSHIT' painted on it in black?

You're right, nothing in the amendment mentions "verbal." Which is why all of us kept disagreeing with you when you repeatedly and explicitly stated that "speech" referred only to verbal expression. I'm not at all sure how you can claim you "never said" something you unambiguously said multiple times...

I never said anything about verbal

Where did you read that?

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?Certain ones. I don't like racism or communism either you know.
So cute... he's like a wee little Joesph McCarthy.

For the 10th time.....flag burning is not speech. Speech is the articulation of words to express ideas. It is one of many forms of expression.

I want to ban it because I feel that it insults all that America stands for.

Expression and speech aren't the same thing?

You find flag burning insulting but you can't go around banning everything you don't like. I don't like country music so I say ban that. Believe me everyone will be better off.

Well, I have to admit, I am a lot less passionate about the Second Ammendment than i am about the First. But please hear me out.
I think that it is fine for families out in the MidWest or South to own guns to shoot dear or rabbits or quails or whatever. I think its okay for families in cities to possess a gun for protection. I do, however, think that it should not be legal or easy for someone to buy enough munitions for a small army and then resell it illegally on the streets to criminals, children, gang members, and so forth. (Also, child safety features arent a bad idea). If a criminal gets a hold of a gun, he or she could be lethal to others or him/herself. If a criminal gets a hold of a newspaper column, or megaphone, its not nearly as dangerous. Hence why it is allowable (in my mind) for a little more regulation of guns than there is of speech.

I hope this answer doesnt cause you to disregard everything else I've already written on this forum.


no,that was lucid and well reasoned point,and it is well taken.

thank you...

i am an absolutist when it comes to my rights,but i do see your point..and i do respect them.

i have respect for you...i do not disregard anyones feelings...nor do i knee jerk on issues.

although i will admit,you would be afraid if you saw the amount of ammunition i have stored...lol...only because i feel that the left will never ban guns(impossible) and will start to go after ammo.

and seeing as i am a cheap son of a bitch...i got alot of it before it becomes to pricey.

i also apologise if i misdirected the thread,i just wanted to point out that...if you believe in the bill of rights,then you have to believe in them all!

You're right, nothing in the amendment mentions "verbal." Which is why all of us kept disagreeing with you when you repeatedly and explicitly stated that "speech" referred only to verbal expression. I'm not at all sure how you can claim you "never said" something you unambiguously said multiple times...

I said that speech is the articulation of words. You can articulate words without being verbal ( eg, sign langauge)
I never said "verbal". You made that part up.

Why are people taking a man named Barry Goldwater seriously? He's joking right?

Flag burning is not a right that is found in the text of the Constitution. The right to equal protection under the law is. I don't see where you are going with this Brown v. Board of Ed. thing....
So, if a state wanted to ban burning say a Soviet flag, that would be permissable.

So would you support my right to fly a flag with 'BULLSHIT' painted on it in black?

No, I believe that would be flag desecration. That would be banned by this amendment...I hope...

Flag burning is not a right that is found in the text of the Constitution. The right to equal protection under the law is. I don't see where you are going with this Brown v. Board of Ed. thing....

You are the one who brought up the issue of segregation and compared it to flag burning. And so what if flag burning isn't in the Constitution? There are many rights that are not covered in the Constitution but in the centuries that document has been interpreted to give us our rights today. Which is why things such as flag burning are legal today.

Barry i'm thoroughly confused by your posts. Please clarify a few things for me.

Is this an accurate summing up of your position?:
The text of the First Ammendment says only "speech", not expression, or symbol, or even action. Therefore it is perfectly fine to prohibit such things as flag burning, since it was only made legal by "activist judges" anyway, who are not representatives of the people.

If that piece is wrong, please clarify immediately, as thats what I am under the impression you believe.
Now let me take the above a step further. Since the First Ammendment says nothing about expression or symbols or actions, and since many people find it offensive, it would be perfectly fine for Congress to ban the usage of "The Bird" or "Middle Finger" (:upyours: ). And if some activist judges overturn that law, we ought to ammend the constitution to ban the middle finger. It does not go against the First Ammendment or the American principles of freedom, does it?

If I have anything above wrong, please correct me.

I said that speech is the articulation of words. You can articulate words without being verbal ( eg, sign langauge)
I never said "verbal". You made that part up.
So lets say that you wanted to say that America is being divided, so you "articulate" that by cutting a flag in half.

How about you "articulate" the idea that American is going down the tubes by flushing a flag down a toilet?

You could also "articulate" the idea that intolerance is burning up America by burning the flag.

By your argument, these things are protected.

Expression and speech aren't the same thing?

You find flag burning insulting but you can't go around banning everything you don't like. I don't like country music so I say ban that. Believe me everyone will be better off.

Speech is a form of expression ( one of many)

If you could get that country music ban up for a vote as an amendment I would happily lobby for it.

So, if a state wanted to ban burning say a Soviet flag, that would be permissable.

yeah///

I said that speech is the articulation of words. You can articulate words without being verbal ( eg, sign langauge)
I never said "verbal". You made that part up.

Okay, you're just becoming a parody of yourself now...

Verbal (adj.): Of, relating to, or consisting of words.

What the heck else did you think the word meant?

You are the one who brought up the issue of segregation and compared it to flag burning. And so what if flag burning isn't in the Constitution? There are many rights that are not covered in the Constitution but in the centuries that document has been interpreted to give us our rights today. Which is why things such as flag burning are legal today.


yeah, thats the part that I don't like. You got it.

You have just insulted every mime on planet Earth. Way to go.
LOL!!!

I'll burn a flag the day that bill is passed. Preferably in a large group of like minded flag burners and with a quick car that I can get away in.
Sounds like a plan!

No, I believe that would be flag desecration. That would be banned by this amendment...I hope...

Right, so you unequivically support abridging people's rights under the First Amendment, since in all your torturous semantic arguments you've claimed the written word is protected by the First Amendment. Now you want to tell me I can't write on something I own...You'd do what, take the flag away, screwing over my Fourth Amendment rights in the process?

BG, let me ask you this: what does freedom of the press mean? Since the Constitution specifically says "press", does that mean it only protects things physically printed on a printing press?

Speech is a form of expression ( one of many)

If you could get that country music ban up for a vote as an amendment I would happily lobby for it.
That would be ridiculous and un-American. Almost as ridiculous and un-American as supporting a flag desecration amendment...

Barry i'm thoroughly confused by your posts. Please clarify a few things for me.

Is this an accurate summing up of your position?:
The text of the First Ammendment says only "speech", not expression, or symbol, or even action. Therefore it is perfectly fine to prohibit such things as flag burning, since it was only made legal by "activist judges" anyway, who are not representatives of the people.

If that piece is wrong, please clarify immediately, as thats what I am under the impression you believe.
Now let me take the above a step further. Since the First Ammendment says nothing about expression or symbols or actions, and since many people find it offensive, it would be perfectly fine for Congress to ban the usage of "The Bird" or "Middle Finger" (:upyours: ). And if some activist judges overturn that law, we ought to ammend the constitution to ban the middle finger. It does not go against the First Ammendment or the American principles of freedom, does it?

If I have anything above wrong, please correct me.

All good except two things:
1) the first Amendment does protect the right to peacefuly assemble ( an action).
2) If there was popular support the ban the middle finger than why the hell not?

So lets say that you wanted to say that America is being divided, so you "articulate" that by cutting a flag in half.

How about you "articulate" the idea that American is going down the tubes by flushing a flag down a toilet?

You could also "articulate" the idea that intolerance is burning up America by burning the flag.

By your argument, these things are protected.

No, because those things are not words that are being articulated.

All good except two things:
1) the first Amendment does protect the right to peacefuly assemble ( an action).
2) If there was popular support the ban the middle finger than why the hell not?
I thought you said it would be protected because the middle finger can be considered sign language.

Certain ones. I don't like racism or communism either you know.

Ya know Stalin didn't like certain rights and he made "amendments" to ban them. Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe was better off without them...

However I think your ideology falls closer to facism.

Okay, you're just becoming a parody of yourself now...

Verbal (adj.): Of, relating to, or consisting of words.

What the heck else did you think the word meant?

You can articulate words without being verbal. This is a simple fact.

You can articulate words without being verbal. This is a simple fact.
So art shouldn't be protected under the freedom of speech?

Right, so you unequivically support abridging people's rights under the First Amendment, since in all your torturous semantic arguments you've claimed the written word is protected by the First Amendment. Now you want to tell me I can't write on something I own...You'd do what, take the flag away, screwing over my Fourth Amendment rights in the process?


I said that I would support an amendment to stop the desecration of the flag. The first Amendment would be altered but not destroyed.

no,that was lucid and well reasoned point,and it is well taken.

thank you...

i am an absolutist when it comes to my rights,but i do see your point..and i do respect them.

i have respect for you...i do not disregard anyones feelings...nor do i knee jerk on issues.

although i will admit,you would be afraid if you saw the amount of ammunition i have stored...lol...only because i feel that the left will never ban guns(impossible) and will start to go after ammo.

and seeing as i am a cheap son of a bitch...i got alot of it before it becomes to pricey.

i also apologise if i misdirected the thread,i just wanted to point out that...if you believe in the bill of rights,then you have to believe in them all!

Hurrah! You know what Chris Rock said....make bullets $100,000. Wont have to worry about innocent bystanders in drive by shootings....you'll know the person had it coming to them. He goes on, very funny, you should watch/listen to it sometime if u havent already.

And its true, Gotta respect the WHOLE Bill of Rights, even poor, forgetten Number Nine: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Ok, back to flag burning....

OK, let's say that ,like what Barrygoldwater's been saying, we should just ignore the Supreme Court (because they've been wrong in the past, so they can't possibly ever be right), banning flag burning is magicly acceptable now.
Why the hell should we do it.

You can articulate words without being verbal. This is a simple fact.

Either that statement is entirely nonsensical, or you're finally acknowledging that symbolic speech is also speech. At this point, your posts have become so bizarre that I'm genuinely uncertain which of those is true.

BG, let me ask you this: what does freedom of the press mean? Since the Constitution specifically says "press", does that mean it only protects things physically printed on a printing press?


That would be ridiculous and un-American. Almost as ridiculous and un-American as supporting a flag desecration amendment...

Freedom of the press means that people can write whatever they want. I would say that handwritten notes count as being of the press. That is simply not relavent to flag burning though...sadly....

I thought you said ..... the middle finger can be considered sign language.


no.....:confused:

Freedom of the press means that people can write whatever they want. I would say that handwritten notes count as being of the press. That is simply not relavent to flag burning though...sadly....
Can they draw whatever they want? And why not, if they cannot?

No, because those things are not words that are being articulated.
Uh, yes they are. I just told you the messages they convey.

no.....:confused:
No really, I could tell you what it stands for sometime.

So art shouldn't be protected under the freedom of speech?


How the hell is art speech?

you know,i am pretty conservative...my son is in the army,my grandfather died in ww1..and my father was seriously wounded in korea...but i have to agree with this poster...

Quote:
I'll burn a flag the day that bill is passed. Preferably in a large group of like minded flag burners and with a quick car that I can get away in.


i believe in freedom to speak your mind,no matter how it may offend me.
i am not saying i wont punch you in the face for burning a flag in front of me..but you do have that right...period!

Either that statement is entirely nonsensical, or you're finally acknowledging that symbolic speech is also speech. At this point, your posts have become so bizarre that I'm genuinely uncertain which of those is true.

DOn't be ridiculous! What do you think text is composed of, symbols or something?

Oh, wait...

I said that I would support an amendment to stop the desecration of the flag. The first Amendment would be altered but not destroyed.

Right, so now you want to alter the First Amendment even though your entire argument against flag burning is based on the idea that it should not be altered? How, exactly, is your position on abridging my freedoms relative to what I'm writing on different from mine on re-interpreting a single word to extend freedoms in a logical manner?

If I'm freezing to death and decide to start a fire in the woods and the only thing dry is an American flag, what should I do? When I come home saying the flag saved my life, are you going to fine me for not dying?

For that matter, how do you go about making a flag if altering it is taken to be disrespectful? Can we put a tag on it with washing instructions?

Either that statement is entirely nonsensical, or you're finally acknowledging that symbolic speech is also speech. At this point, your posts have become so bizarre that I'm genuinely uncertain which of those is true.

It is not complicated. Speech is made of words. Words can be articulated without speaking ( like sign langauge).

Freedom of the press means that people can write whatever they want. I would say that handwritten notes count as being of the press. That is simply not relavent to flag burning though...sadly....
Actually, it's very relevant.

You extend "freedom of the press" to broader forms of printed communication beyond the printing press, no? Books, newspapers, Internet articles, handwritten notes?

So why can't "freedom of speech" be similarly extended to broader forms of expression, including speeches, sign language, body language, and symbolic actions?

Uh, yes they are. I just told you the messages they convey.


But that is laughable.A flag is not a word. A tiolet flushing is not a word. Actions are not words! This is not staggeringly obvious?

How the hell is art speech?
So, something like this says nothing to you?
http://home.debitel.net/user/RMittelstaedt/Global/img-glob/korea.jpg

But that is laughable.A flag is not a word. A tiolet flushing is not a word. Actions are not words! This is not staggeringly obvious?
Actually, you just said that assembly is an action, and therefore protected.

you know,i am pretty conservative...my son is in the army,my grandfather died in ww1..and my father was seriously wounded in korea...but i have to agree with this poster...

Quote:
I'll burn a flag the day that bill is passed. Preferably in a large group of like minded flag burners and with a quick car that I can get away in.


i believe in freedom to speak your mind,no matter how it may offend me.
i am not saying i wont punch you in the face for burning a flag in front of me..but you do have that right...period!
I'd accept that punch to the face, Sir.

:mp5: All good except two things:
1) the first Amendment does protect the right to peacefuly assemble ( an action).
2) If there was popular support the ban the middle finger than why the hell not?

Good call with the peaceful assembly.

Ok, so we ban the middle finger usage. Now, in this imaginary population, lets say there is a lot of support for the war in Iraq. Everyone thinks it is a great idea. But those Cindy Sheehan (apologize for possible incorrect spelling) keep protesting the war. The way these imaginary people protect and call attention is by using emoticons all over the internet. Lets say :mp5: becomes a well known symbol for opposition to the War. But a majority of people support the war, and think these :mp5: all over the internet undermine the war effort, show lack of respect for our troops, and now banners are being painted with the image of :mp5: on it. A vast majority...lets say 90 some odd percent are opposed to these :mp5:
Should we ban them?

Another instance where we ought all to stand, salute, and recite "God Bless the ACLU."

Actually, it's very relevant.

You extend "freedom of the press" to broader forms of printed communication beyond the printing press, no? Books, newspapers, Internet articles, handwritten notes?

So why can't "freedom of speech" be similarly extended to broader forms of expression, including speeches, sign language, body language, and symbolic actions?

Because the press is a word that the meaning changes over time with new technology. Speech is the same thing that it was in the days of Christ and before.

So, something like this says nothing to you?
http://home.debitel.net/user/RMittelstaedt/Global/img-glob/korea.jpg

It expresses many ideas but it does not say anything.

Because the press is a word that the meaning changes over time with new technology. Speech is the same thing that it was in the days of Christ and before.
From Wiki:
The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Well, mostly understood.

Barry, would you also support banning the display of the Confederate flag on the grounds that it insults all those who died fighting for the Union [and with it, the flag] in the Civil War?

Actually, you just said that assembly is an action, and therefore protected.

Yes, assembly is protected because the text says that there is a right to peacefuly assemble.

But that is laughable.A flag is not a word. A tiolet flushing is not a word. Actions are not words! This is not staggeringly obvious?

The act of burning a flag is a form of expression however. Just as art and music is expression and speech.

I can't see how expression/speech can be seperated. You are advocating restricting the 1st amendment which is never a good thing. Why don't we restrict it in some more positive way like banning digital kiddie porn. Not real kids so is legal under freedom of speech? What crap. Now here is something you can argue to do some restricting on.

you know,i am pretty conservative...my son is in the army,my grandfather died in ww1..and my father was seriously wounded in korea...but i have to agree with this poster...

Quote:
I'll burn a flag the day that bill is passed. Preferably in a large group of like minded flag burners and with a quick car that I can get away in.


i believe in freedom to speak your mind,no matter how it may offend me.
i am not saying i wont punch you in the face for burning a flag in front of me..but you do have that right...period!

Couldn't have said it better myself

Because the press is a word that the meaning changes over time with new technology. Speech is the same thing that it was in the days of Christ and before.
So could you prosecute someone for broadcasting an offensive speech over the Internet? Podcasts didn't exist in the days of Christ...

:mp5:

Good call with the peaceful assembly.

Ok, so we ban the middle finger usage. Now, in this imaginary population, lets say there is a lot of support for the war in Iraq. Everyone thinks it is a great idea. But those Cindy Sheehan (apologize for possible incorrect spelling) keep protesting the war. The way these imaginary people protect and call attention is by using emoticons all over the internet. Lets say :mp5: becomes a well known symbol for opposition to the War. But a majority of people support the war, and think these :mp5: all over the internet undermine the war effort, show lack of respect for our troops, and now banners are being painted with the image of :mp5: on it. A vast majority...lets say 90 some odd percent are opposed to these :mp5:
Should we ban them?

I would. The Constitution would not though.

It is not complicated. Speech is made of words. Words can be articulated without speaking ( like sign langauge).

Barry, m'dear, could you try going back and actually reading that helpful definition of "verbal" I provided for you? You know, the one that's the primary definition of the word? It won't help your argument much, but you'll at least look a wee bit less silly when you stop declaring, "I never said speech had to involve words! I just said it had to involve words!"

Of course, your position will still be mind-bogglingly inconsistent, since giving someone "the finger" is pretty undeniably articulating a verbal message without actually writing or speaking those words, and you've claimed that it's not protected under the First Amendment. Care to explain how that doesn't contradict your statement that sign language, which also involves the articulation of a verbal message without speaking or writing the words in question, is protected?

So, something like this says nothing to you?
http://home.debitel.net/user/RMittelstaedt/Global/img-glob/korea.jpg


wow..this quote is plain scary....i see were you got your nick,and i am pretty freakin conservative...but you cant be serious...say it aint so.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrygoldwater
How the hell is art speech?

think about what you just wrote...pleaseeeeeee!

you must be the new style conservative i keep hearing about....you know..the ones that send my kid to war,and never saw a barracks..ever..even when they were in the service..lol

Barry, would you also support banning the display of the Confederate flag on the grounds that it insults all those who died fighting for the Union [and with it, the flag] in the Civil War?


If people could muster support for that I would accept their right to pass such a law. I would not vote for it.

http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html
B. The word speech in the First Amendment has been extended to a generous sense of "expression" -- verbal, non-verbal, visual, symbolic. The artistic work supported by the NEA includes a variety of types of expression enjoying this broad protection.

Because the press is a word that the meaning changes over time with new technology. Speech is the same thing that it was in the days of Christ and before.

:sigh: You just had to bring Him into it, didn't you....

For a US citizen to burn the US flag is, at least symbollically, near-treasonous, and I see no reason to not ban it.Yep. Symbolically. That's what makes it speech. Last time I checked, free speech was considered a patriotic hallmark of American democracy.

It would be treasonous to pass this Amendment. I think it's treasonous to even suggest it.

Or haven't you ever recited the Pledge of Allegiance?Actually, no. I never have.

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!What a sorry excuse for a slippery slope.

You'd be wise to admit that you're wrong and get us all back on track as to why you think banning flag burning should be an exception to freedom of speech.

I would. The Constitution would not though.
What is the difference?

http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html
B. The word speech in the First Amendment has been extended to a generous sense of "expression" -- verbal, non-verbal, visual, symbolic. The artistic work supported by the NEA includes a variety of types of expression enjoying this broad protection.
Oh no, he doesn't think that's valid, because it was them goldurned activist judges who broadened the definition. And God Almaty knows that nothing them activist judges do can be right...

The act of burning a flag is a form of expression however. Just as art and music is expression and speech.

I can't see how expression/speech can be seperated. You are advocating restricting the 1st amendment which is never a good thing. Why don't we restrict it in some more positive way like banning digital kiddie porn. Not real kids so is legal under freedom of speech? What crap. Now here is something you can argue to do some restricting on.

Speech is just one of many forms of expression. Digital porn of kids is not speech. How would it be? That is an awful idea. Maybe some would say it is protected because it is symbolic of somthing or other.....but not me.

Yes, assembly is protected because the text says that there is a right to peacefuly assemble.

As long as they don't burn any flags while peacefully assembling, right? Then break out the riot gear!

Oh no, he doesn't think that's valid, because it was them goldurned activist judges who broadened the definition. And God Almaty knows that nothing them activist judges do can be right...
He'll get it eventually. Right? Right??

So could you prosecute someone for broadcasting an offensive speech over the Internet?

no. It does not matter what the broadcast method is. Speech is protected under the first Amendment.

If people could muster support for that I would accept their right to pass such a law. I would not vote for it.

Interesting. So you believe that it's perfectly ok to ban people from displaying anything on their own private property if the majority agrees? John Stuart Mill spoke of the 'tyranny of the majority,' and it seems you support what he did not.

Forced uniformity...I thought you didn't like communism?

Speech is just one of many forms of expression. Digital porn of kids is not speech. How would it be? That is an awful idea. Maybe some would say it is protected because it is symbolic of somthing or other.....but not me.

It is not an idea. It was ruled legal because it wasn't presenting any real kids so is placed in the "art" category. Just like taking "models" in their early 20's and reversing their age to 12 and selling it. Still not kiddie porn because no actual kids are used. Still it is this kind of speech that can be argued as being unacceptable but at the moment it is just fine. When compared to this I really don't give a damn about someone burning a flag.

Barry, m'dear, could you try going back and actually reading that helpful definition of "verbal" I provided for you? You know, the one that's the primary definition of the word? It won't help your argument much, but you'll at least look a wee bit less silly when you stop declaring, "I never said speech had to involve words! I just said it had to involve words!"

Of course, your position will still be mind-bogglingly inconsistent, since giving someone "the finger" is pretty undeniably articulating a verbal message without actually writing or speaking those words, and you've claimed that it's not protected under the First Amendment. Care to explain how that doesn't contradict your statement that sign language, which also involves the articulation of a verbal message without speaking or writing the words in question, is protected?

I get the feeling that you don't actualy read what I write. For the 11th time......speech is made of words. These words can be said in a verbal or non-verbal way. The verbal nature is not relavent. Pointing a finger at someone is not verbal in any way....btw

Interesting. So you believe that it's perfectly ok to ban people from displaying anything on their own private property if the majority agrees? John Stuart Mill spoke of the 'tyranny of the majority,' and it seems you support what he did not.

Forced uniformity...I thought you didn't like communism?

No, he doesn't like other people's communism. He doesn't mind it if it follows his rules. ;)

Yep. Symbolically. That's what makes it speech. Last time I checked, free speech was considered a patriotic hallmark of American democracy.

It would be treasonous to pass this Amendment. I think it's treasonous to even suggest it.

.


Unless you were to deny that burning an object had anything to do with speech.

I get the feeling that you don't actualy read what I write. For the 11th time......speech is made of words. These words can be said in a verbal or non-verbal way.

Speech is made of words, words descibe ideas, ideas can be expressed through actions, actions express words. [for example, sign language, the middle finger, or drawing a box in sand]

Which part of this gives you trouble?

I get the feeling that you don't actualy read what I write. For the 11th time......speech is made of words. These words can be said in a verbal or non-verbal way. The verbal nature is not relavent. Pointing a finger at someone is not verbal in any way....btw
Everyone is saying that you're wrong Barry. Everyone. It's not only in your mind.






everyone

no. It does not matter what the broadcast method is. Speech is protected under the first Amendment.
Exactly. Whether it's vocalized, gestured, brodacast over a network, burned onto a DVD, or conveyed through symbolic action, speech is protected by the First Amendment. I agree with you completely, for once.

Here's what I can't understand: he accepts wholeheartedly the symbolic nature of the flag, so much so that he would jail anyone who defaced it.

And yet he seems incapable of grasping the symbolic nature of art, gestures, and actions. Including flag burning.

You guys just don't get it:

1)Speech is verbal
2)Sign-language is an articulation of words
3)Words are verbal
4)Articulation is not expression
5)Expression does not use words
6)Words are not expression
7)Therefore, Speech is not expression.

(1)Speech is made of words, words descibe ideas,



(2)ideas can be expressed through actions, actions express words. [for example, sign language, the middle finger, or drawing a box in sand]

Which part of this gives you trouble?

you have two different point there that don't belong as one point. see?

You guys just don't get it:

1)Speech is verbal
2)Sign-language is an articulation of words
3)Words are verbal
4)Articulation is not expression
5)Expression does not use words
6)Words are not expression
7)Therefore, Speech is not expression.

I like you. You're silly. :)

I like you. You're silly. :)

It makes perfect sense!

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.Actually, my dictionary (Merriam-Webster) specifies that speech refers to "the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words." I suppose that means (to you) that written words are not protected either, except as they are used by the press?

What a ridiculous argument. The First Amendment's freedom of speech includes all forms of expression short of the blatant and irredeemably obscene.

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.Yes, the Supreme Court occasionally goes "over the head" of the American people... like that whole desegregation thing. Man, shame on them for standing up for constitutional rights rather than caving to public pressure. It's almost like they're trying to do their job or something.

*Source?

Everyone is saying that you're wrong Barry. Everyone. It's not only in your mind.






everyone

The American people are on my side.

I predict that a majority of the Senate will be too. Yes, I am all alone in this lush forest of like minded liberals.

It makes perfect sense!

Sorry, those are just words. There's no expression there. :)

You guys just don't get it:

1)Speech is verbal
2)Sign-language is an articulation of words
3)Words are verbal
4)Articulation is not expression
5)Expression does not use words
6)Words are not expression
7)Therefore, Speech is not expression.

The dictionary seems to be more clear on what speech is:

"words or conduct used to communicate or express a thought"

Seems to be pretty simple to me. Expression is speech, speech is expression.

The American people are on my side.

I predict that a majority of the Senate will be too. Yes, I am all alone in this lush forest of like minded liberals.
Like minded liberals and Picasso. Don't forget Picasso.

You'd be wise to admit that you're wrong and get us all back on track as to why you think banning flag burning should be an exception to freedom of speech.



AMEN!

Exactly. Whether it's vocalized, gestured, brodacast over a network, burned onto a DVD, or conveyed through symbolic action, speech is protected by the First Amendment. I agree with you completely, for once.

Vocalization has words.
Broadcasts have words.
Dvd's have words coded on them.

Gestures are an action ( without words)
Symbolic action is just that. ( no words)

Two different concepts. One is protected in the text of the Constitution. Th other is not.

you have two different point there that don't belong as one point. see?

No. They are the same point. Speech is a method of articulating ideas, as is sign language, but sign language is not speech it is hand gestures. Similarly, drawing a picture is a way of articulating ideas. Since some languages started with pictures representing concepts [Chinese, for example], how do you seperate art and language? Are pictures that represent thoughts not speech, meaning written Chinese isn't protected by the First Amendment at all?

The American people are on my side.

I predict that a majority of the Senate will be too. Yes, I am all alone in this lush forest of like minded liberals.

I predict that the Senate won't even get a majority.

And yeah, that was a 5-4 court decision that was highly contested.5-4 is still precedent. Especially when there is not a single decision that conflicts with the ruling.

You guys just don't get it:

1)Speech is verbal
2)Sign-language is an articulation of words
3)Words are verbal
4)Articulation is not expression
5)Expression does not use words
6)Words are not expression
7)Therefore, Speech is not expression.

1) sometimes, sometimes not
2) yes
3) sometimes, sometimes not
4) wrong
5) it can, but sometimes it does not
6) false
7)really false.

1) sometimes, sometimes not
2) yes
3) sometimes, sometimes not
4) wrong
5) it can, but sometimes it does not
6) false
7)really false.

Yes, thank you, thank you for admitting that speech is expression, and expression is protected.

Yes, the Supreme Court occasionally goes "over the head" of the American people... like that whole desegregation thing. Man, shame on them for standing up for constitutional rights rather than caving to public pressure. It's almost like they're trying to do their job or something.

*Source?


Desegregation was mandated by the American people by the passage of the equal protection clause in the 1860's. Activist Judges ( plessy v. ferguson) stopped their voices from being heard.

Vocalization has words.
Broadcasts have words.
Dvd's have words coded on them.

Gestures are an action ( without words)
Symbolic action is just that. ( no words)

Two different concepts. One is protected in the text of the Constitution. Th other is not.
Interesting. So, in your view, a mute person who has no hands has no Constitutional right to free speech? He couldn't, say, punch an effigy of George Bush? Or kick down a scale model of the White House? Or spit on an American flag? After all, those things are actions, and not protected. Right?

Don't tell me you'd deprive a disabled person of their First Amendment rights...

No. They are the same point. Speech is a method of articulating ideas, as is sign language, but sign language is not speech it is hand gestures. Similarly, drawing a picture is a way of articulating ideas. Since some languages started with pictures representing concepts [Chinese, for example], how do you seperate art and language? Are pictures that represent thoughts not speech, meaning written Chinese isn't protected by the First Amendment at all?


Chinese writing ( hey I just got back from there) is picures but it is also words. This means that it is protected by the first Amendment.

The American people are on my side.

I predict that a majority of the Senate will be too. Yes, I am all alone in this lush forest of like minded liberals.

Kindly refrain fromm calling me a like minded liberal. I am more conservative than most people I know, and I am hardly "like minded" on any number of significant issues.

I would be honored, however, if you would include me in that distinguished group which you call "The American people," despite the fact that on this issue, I could not be further away from you.

I predict that the Senate won't even get a majority.

Remember that you said that.

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.How the hell do you know?

Thankfully, our Founding generation--like all true patriots--were not so blindly trusting of government authority. They understood the need to safegaurd the rights of the people against eventhe most improbable tyranny. They had the extensive safeguards of the checks and balances among the coordinate branches. They had the threat of electoral reprisal.

And yet they still demanded a Bill of Rights.

Speech is a right not because we hope that government will not restrict it, but because we refuse to live under a government that can.

After all, the last time they voted on it was 1996 and it got 63 votes.

I get the feeling that you don't actualy read what I write. For the 11th time......speech is made of words. These words can be said in a verbal or non-verbal way. The verbal nature is not relavent. Pointing a finger at someone is not verbal in any way....btw

I get the certainty that you didn't actually read the primary definition of "verbal," since you continue to assume (it seems) that its tertiary definition of "uttered aloud, as opposed to written" is the only definition in existence. It's not. Once again, the primary definition of "verbal" is "of, relating to, or composed of words." You're welcome to use the tertiary definition, but its existence in no way renders the primary definition nonexistent. "Non-verbal words" is an oxymoronic phrase. Understand?

And while pointing a finger at someone does not intrinsically involve words, the specific gesture people call "the finger" or "the bird" which this annoying little red smiley is doing :upyours: is a symbolic representation of very specific words, which I trust you don't really need quoted for you. It is very closely akin to sign language. Please explain precisely how your strange "speech" definition applies to sign language and not to "the finger."

Chinese writing ( hey I just got back from there) is picures but it is also words. This means that it is protected by the first Amendment.
Well, thank God hieroglyphics are protected.

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

Actually, you're probably right. There is one in particular that my students can never seem to remember...

Yes, thank you, thank you for admitting that speech is expression, and expression is protected.

Speech is a kind of expression. That does not mean that all types of expression are speech. good grief.

Interesting. So, in your view, a mute person who has no hands has no Constitutional right to free speech? He couldn't, say, punch an effigy of George Bush? Or kick down a scale model of the White House? Or spit on an American flag? After all, those things are actions, and not protected. Right?

Don't tell me you'd deprive a disabled person of their First Amendment rights...
I don't get it.

Speech is a kind of expression. That does not mean that all types of expression are speech. good grief.

No no, verbal articulation is a kind of expression. That does not mean that all types of verbal expression are word articulation, nor does it mean that word expression is articulated articulation.

Speech is a kind of expression. That does not mean that all types of expression are speech. good grief.
Freedom of Speech (I can't believe I'm actually saying this) has been expanded to mean Freedom of Expression. Does this make it easier?

Remember that you said that.

Remember what?

;)

I'd like to think that the constitution means enough to true conservatives that their librtarianism will override their blind nationalism.

Chinese writing ( hey I just got back from there) is picures but it is also words. This means that it is protected by the first Amendment.

Look, the dictionary seems clear on speech.

"words or conduct used to communicate or express a thought".

Speech does not require actual words. Which is why art is considered speech. Just as conduct is, like flag burning.

Why is this so hard to accept?

Interesting. So you believe that it's perfectly ok to ban people from displaying anything on their own private property if the majority agrees? John Stuart Mill spoke of the 'tyranny of the majority,' and it seems you support what he did not.

Forced uniformity...I thought you didn't like communism?



outstanding point!

good luck getting thru the dogma he/she was taught.

another analogy would be the taliban,the snarky nice fellas that just want everything to be...exactly the way they want it..no exceptions..then everything will be just peachy.

i'll say it again...majority rule is mob rule(think frankenstein getting chased by the townfolks)
please dont tell me that is how you visulize your america:-(

it is unfair to me to see someone burn a flag...and i would probably punch them...but you know what...they can and should be able too..

i want to live in a country were you can offend me...not in a country were i am told to be a good little sheeple and to stfu...like the taliban,or the commies you so obviously despise/aspire to be.

i hope you are young,and gaining knowledge..cause this is a no brainer issue.

i am not trying to be mean to you...i really am not,but your attitude/opinion is seriously incorrect,and i may add,makes us americans look like idiots.


please reconsider your thoughts on this issue.

did not mean to come across as a pathetic know it all....or as some holier then thou..i know whats best type...but really....

you had me at "art is not exspression"

Interesting. So, in your view, a mute person who has no hands has no Constitutional right to free speech? He couldn't, say, punch an effigy of George Bush? Or kick down a scale model of the White House? Or spit on an American flag? After all, those things are actions, and not protected. Right?

Don't tell me you'd deprive a disabled person of their First Amendment rights...
I don't get it.
Mute = no vocal speech

No hands = no sign language

By your narrow definition of the First Amendment, such a person would have no other way to express himself that would be protected as "free speech". The many forms of non-verbal, non-sign language means of expression I mentioned would not be acceptable, in your view, despite the fact that they convey perfectly clear ideas.

Barry, you left me hanging! I sincerely wanna know your answers.

Quick Recap:
So we established that if a majority wants to ban the use of the middle finger, they can go right ahead. If some activist judges "mis"interpret the constitution and say its illegal, they can and should go about ammending the Constitution to ban the use of the middle finger.

However, when we alter whats being banned and the situation a little:
Ok, so we ban the middle finger usage. Now, in this imaginary population, lets say there is a lot of support for the war in Iraq. Everyone thinks it is a great idea. But those Cindy Sheehan (apologize for possible incorrect spelling) keep protesting the war. The way these imaginary people protect and call attention is by using emoticons all over the internet. Lets say becomes a well known symbol for opposition to the War. But a majority of people support the war, and think these all over the internet undermine the war effort, show lack of respect for our troops, and now banners are being painted with the image of on it. A vast majority...lets say 90 some odd percent are opposed to these
Should we ban them?

You responded the Constition makes banning them illegal. What is the difference between this and the middle finger, or this and flag burning?

Look, the dictionary seems clear on speech.

"words or conduct used to communicate or express a thought".

Speech does not require actual words. Which is why art is considered speech. Just as conduct is, like flag burning.

Why is this so hard to accept?
Apparently, the world's English dictionaries are under the control of activist... linguists.

Barry, you left me hanging! I sincerely wanna know your answers.

Quick Recap:
So we established that if a majority wants to ban the use of the middle finger, they can go right ahead. If some activist judges "mis"interpret the constitution and say its illegal, they can and should go about ammending the Constitution to ban the use of the middle finger.

However, when we alter whats being banned and the situation a little:
Ok, so we ban the middle finger usage. Now, in this imaginary population, lets say there is a lot of support for the war in Iraq. Everyone thinks it is a great idea. But those Cindy Sheehan (apologize for possible incorrect spelling) keep protesting the war. The way these imaginary people protect and call attention is by using emoticons all over the internet. Lets say becomes a well known symbol for opposition to the War. But a majority of people support the war, and think these all over the internet undermine the war effort, show lack of respect for our troops, and now banners are being painted with the image of on it. A vast majority...lets say 90 some odd percent are opposed to these
Should we ban them?

You responded the Constition makes banning them illegal. What is the difference between this and the middle finger, or this and flag burning?

You're confusing articulated electronic expression with non-verbal word articulation. Clearly. I mean, come on.

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.Yes, but reasonable people (namely, everyone but you) are intelligent enough to ask, "Gee, just what did they mean by that? Did they mean us to take it literally, or did they mean something else?"

One useful way to answer this question is to go back to historical texts from the time to review how the words "speech" and "freedom of speech" were used in common parlance.

As it turns out, much of the criticism of the recently ousted British government had been in the form of (often rather pornographic) political cartoons. These were considered "speech" at the time, as were the vulgar gestures that rebellious people might flash at British officials... as were, of course, various other symbolic gestures of protest.

Naturally, the repressive British government didn't take kindly to this, and punished people for such expressive offenses if they could catch them.

Our Founders were determined to create something better than that. To the extent that they succeeded, they deserve our eternal gratitude.

Apparently, the world's English dictionaries are under the control of activist... linguists.
And possibly Picasso.

Yes, but reasonable people (namely, everyone but you) are intelligent enough to ask, "Gee, just what did they mean by that? Did they mean us to take it literally, or did they mean something else?"

...

Our Founders were determined to create something better than that. To the extent that they succeeded, they deserve our eternal gratitude.

Now you're confusing articulated artistic expression and verbal articulation. Jesus.

Chinese writing ( hey I just got back from there) is picures but it is also words. This means that it is protected by the first Amendment.

No, it is pictures associated with ideas, with many pictures being stylised representations of the thing in question. So if a series of stylised figured representing thoughts are protected, why not a different series of stylised figures someone else thought up?

The untenability of your position here is amazing. You're arguing that because of the specific wording of a document you yourself would see abridged, only spoken language, gestures specifically pertaining to words [semaphore, sign language, Morse code], and some, but not all, pictures representing concepts were intended to be protected.

But hold on, language is just a conveniant way of transferring information via symbols and sounds, right? So, um, shouldn't other symbols and sounds gain equal protection if they also transfer thoughts and information, such as, I don't know, artwork, music, dancing...

How would you define where speech ends and singing a cappella begins? How do you define where writing ends and art begins?

You're confusing articulated electronic expression with non-verbal word articulation. Clearly. I mean, come on.

And you're confusing.....well, me, with all those big words, and that long sentence. LoL. But I think I get it. :smiles and nods:

Apparently, the world's English dictionaries are under the control of activist... linguists.

According to the law speech is more then what we say but includes conduct. When you hear "freedom of speech" it is not just what we say and write after all. So it really doesn't matter what the dictionary says anyway as we are covered by U.S. law.

No, it is pictures associated with ideas, with many pictures being stylised representations of the thing in question. So if a series of stylised figured representing thoughts are protected, why not a different series of stylised figures someone else thought up?

The untenability of your position here is amazing. You're arguing that because of the specific wording of a document you yourself would see abridged, only spoken language, gestures specifically pertaining to words [semaphore, sign language, Morse code], and some, but not all, pictures representing concepts were intended to be protected.



This is a clear mix up between non-verbal articulate expression and verbal speech articulation.

According to the law speech is more then what we say but includes conduct. When you hear "freedom of speech" it is not just what we say and write after all. So it really doesn't matter what the dictionary says anyway as we are covered by U.S. law.
It's a bonus to be covered by dictionary, though.

And you're confusing.....well, me, with all those big words, and that long sentence. LoL. But I think I get it. :smiles and nods:

I'm sorry, but I have to clarify:

Are you expressing your confusion with electronic non-verbal articulation, or verbalizing your non-verbal expression of confusion?

"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.Actually, more of the Constitution's Framers were reporters, poets, and agitators than soldiers. And of course, what soldiers there were also happened to be reporters and agitators. Soldiers were, moreover, apparently underrepresented among the men who drafted the First Amendment. (The politicians had, of course, mostly busied themselves with organizing and funding the revolution while the armies fought it.)

So... Yes, we owe an immeasurable debt to soldiers for capturing and securing our freedoms. But if you want to understand what those freedoms are, try asking the reporters and the poets and the agitators--without whose efforts the soldiers would have had no war to fight.


Soldiers know a lot about loyalty. But men like Thomas Jefferson (Declaration of Independence) do seem to know a thing or two about the ideas that inspire it.

This is a clear mix up between non-verbal articulate expression and verbal speech articulation.

Sorry. I'm clearly evil educated stupid.

The American people are on my side.

I predict that a majority of the Senate will be too. Yes, I am all alone in this lush forest of like minded liberals.

as an unabashed american..i truly hope your incorrect...

but then again,you probably think the patriot act is a good thing...and news flash..it aint..it is a way for the gov to usurp our rights..as usual...but if it's for the children..lol..it cant be bad.

nevermind..let's not go there...flag burning is enough!

try to think of it this way...the whole flag thing is a non issue..to divert you/us from the real issues..like the war/inflation/national debt...you know..the scary shit..but flag burning is something we can realy sink our collective teeth into..think it thru...it will be a misdeameanor...a fine..and no one will do it if it is illegal(unless in mass numbers..which i doubt)

what a pleasant diversion....got you all lathered up..didnt it...haha...jokes on you.

forgot about the real issues...didn't you!

Sorry. I'm clearly evil educated stupid.

YOU ARE SINGULARITY STUPID!

It's a bonus to be covered by dictionary, though.

True. I have noticed that different dictionaries do give slightly different interpretations however. I've seen others posting definitions for speech and they don't match mine.

Besides, we're the USA! We don't need a dictionary! Just look at how our president speaks! :D

Apparently, the world's English dictionaries are under the control of activist... linguists.

Darn those activist linguists! Them and their "defining things according to actual usage, rather than solely the opinions of Barrygoldwater"! Pssssh.

This is a clear mix up between non-verbal articulate expression and verbal speech articulation.
Thank God you are here to clarify, since Barry seems to have run away to use his Second Ammendment to buy guns to punish those who exercise their First Ammendment Rights.

Why are we even arguing with him anyways? I mean, he does not have any thought provoking rebuttles, and the rest of us all agree, methinks. I mean, normally I dont mind debating an issue if the person will consider valid points and provide valide counterpoints, but this is like arguing with someone who wants to deny the sun rise (or supports a constitutional ban to the sunrise)

Usually I like coming to NS forum cuz i think the ppl who post here are smart, and I could learn something from them. Its not often a poster makes me feel as brilliant as Barry does. And for that, I thank him.

True. I have noticed that different dictionaries do give slightly different interpretations however. I've seen others posting definitions for speech and they don't match mine.
Those are the dictionaries of the man trying to hold us down with their misdefined words.

Thank God you are here to clarify, since Barry seems to have run away to use his Second Ammendment to buy guns to punish those who exercise their First Ammendment Rights.

Why are we even arguing with him anyways? I mean, he does not have any thought provoking rebuttles, and the rest of us all agree, methinks. I mean, normally I dont mind debating an issue if the person will consider valid points and provide valide counterpoints, but this is like arguing with someone who wants to deny the sun rise (or supports a constitutional ban to the sunrise)

Usually I like coming to NS forum cuz i think the ppl who post here are smart, and I could learn something from them. Its not often a poster makes me feel as brilliant as Barry does. And for that, I thank him.
My excuse is insomnia.

I'm sorry, but I have to clarify:

Are you expressing your confusion with electronic non-verbal articulation, or verbalizing your non-verbal expression of confusion?
LMAO

BOTH! So, which one am I allowed to do and which one cant i do, in Barry's would be America?

Thank God you are here to clarify, since Barry seems to have run away to use his Second Ammendment to buy guns to punish those who exercise their First Ammendment Rights.

Why are we even arguing with him anyways? I mean, he does not have any thought provoking rebuttles, and the rest of us all agree, methinks. I mean, normally I dont mind debating an issue if the person will consider valid points and provide valide counterpoints, but this is like arguing with someone who wants to deny the sun rise (or supports a constitutional ban to the sunrise)

Usually I like coming to NS forum cuz i think the ppl who post here are smart, and I could learn something from them. Its not often a poster makes me feel as brilliant as Barry does. And for that, I thank him.

I'm sorry, but I can't understand what you are expressing. Could you say it for me?

My excuse is insomnia.
Ah, so I'm not the only one...

Those are the dictionaries of the man trying to hold us down with their misdefined words.

Even worse when they don't even give a real definition. I looked up what a terrorist was and got this:

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

What exactly does this mean? A terrorist is someone who uses terror? WTF?

LMAO

BOTH! So, which one am I allowed to do and which one cant i do, in Barry's would be America?

One could conceivably articulate emotional expression of joy and happiness when it comes to the flag, however one could not articulate emotional expressions of disappointment or disagreement, as that is clearly not protected by the speech provision of the 1st Amendment.

Ah, so I'm not the only one...
I thought he was a funny puppet at first. But puppets usually have funnier and better thought out arguments.

Ah, so I'm not the only one...

Nope, not at all. I should really have been in bed two hours ago, myself.

*yawn*

Thank God you are here to clarify, since Barry seems to have run away to use his Second Ammendment to buy guns to punish those who exercise their First Ammendment Rights.

Why are we even arguing with him anyways? I mean, he does not have any thought provoking rebuttles, and the rest of us all agree, methinks. I mean, normally I dont mind debating an issue if the person will consider valid points and provide valide counterpoints, but this is like arguing with someone who wants to deny the sun rise (or supports a constitutional ban to the sunrise)

Usually I like coming to NS forum cuz i think the ppl who post here are smart, and I could learn something from them. Its not often a poster makes me feel as brilliant as Barry does. And for that, I thank him.


hey..i resemble that remark...the sky is orange...silly boy/girl

Thank God you are here to clarify, since Barry seems to have run away to use his Second Ammendment to buy guns to punish those who exercise their First Ammendment Rights.
One temporarily down, more than a hundred million to go...

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?Umm... could you provide relevant laws, and cases?

Last time I checked, most cross-burning statutes had been stricken as unconstitutional for overbreadth, and the Supreme Court indicated that it would only allow a cross-burning ban that specifically prohibited burning a cross "for purposes of intimidation"--meaning that the prosecution would have to have an actual victim or victims, and prove motive.

as an unabashed american..i truly hope your incorrect...

but then again,you probably think the patriot act is a good thing...and news flash..it aint..it is a way for the gov to usurp our rights..as usual...but if it's for the children..lol..it cant be bad.

nevermind..let's not go there...flag burning is enough!

try to think of it this way...the whole flag thing is a non issue..to divert you/us from the real issues..like the war/inflation/national debt...you know..the scary shit..but flag burning is something we can realy sink our collective teeth into..think it thru...it will be a misdeameanor...a fine..and no one will do it if it is illegal(unless in mass numbers..which i doubt)

what a pleasant diversion....got you all lathered up..didnt it...haha...jokes on you.

forgot about the real issues...didn't you!

True enough....
But God/Dog/Allah forbid it actually go anywhere, it is very much an issue. We must try to nip it in the bud, so we can focus on all the problems we probably dont really know how to fix, anyways.

Yes, but reasonable people (namely, everyone but you) are intelligent enough to ask, "Gee, just what did they mean by that? Did they mean us to take it literally, or did they mean something else?"

One useful way to answer this question is to go back to historical texts from the time to review how the words "speech" and "freedom of speech" were used in common parlance.

As it turns out, much of the criticism of the recently ousted British government had been in the form of (often rather pornographic) political cartoons. These were considered "speech" at the time, as were the vulgar gestures that rebellious people might flash at British officials... as were, of course, various other symbolic gestures of protest.

Naturally, the repressive British government didn't take kindly to this, and punished people for such expressive offenses if they could catch them.

Our Founders were determined to create something better than that. To the extent that they succeeded, they deserve our eternal gratitude.

i want to kiss you!

*yawn*

Well, I'm going to bed. I trust you all will continue the good fight if our friend shows up again. Sayonara...

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.Wrong. The first flag-burning law was enacted in 1897.

Stop making up history as you go along.

as that is clearly not protected by the speech provision of the 1st Amendment.

'What's that? Someone's burning a flag! Quickly, that's much more important than fighting actual crime!'

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/IdiotSquad.jpg

True enough....
But God/Dog/Allah forbid it actually go anywhere, it is very much an issue. We must try to nip it in the bud, so we can focus on all the problems we probably dont really know how to fix, anyways.

I really do believe that by the time the election is over we won't hear about this again. This seems to be the best that Republicans can come up with to get support this year. Well this and gay marriage bans anyway. Smell desperation?

'What's that? Someone's burning a flag! Quickly, that's much more important than fighting actual crime!'

Are you that oblivious?

I'm sorry, but I can't understand what you are expressing. Could you say it for me?

Arguing with Barry = :headbang:
Why are we continuing = :confused:
We all agree, except him = :fluffle:
Barry's comments: :rolleyes:
But Barry makes me feel smart! = :cool:

Geez. That was way shorter than the first post. I should just use emoticons to say everything I need to. Best get that phase in now, before Barry is offended by them and passes a constitutional ammendment banning it. :eek: Eek indeed.

Geez. That was way shorter than the first post. I should just use emoticons to say everything I need to. Best get that phase in now, before Barry is offended by them and passes a constitutional ammendment banning it. :eek: Eek indeed.

rofl, that was good

*yawn*

Well, I'm going to bed. I trust you all will continue the good fight if our friend shows up again. Sayonara...
Sweet dreams.

'What's that? Someone's burning a flag! Quickly, that's much more important than fighting actual crime!'

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/IdiotSquad.jpg

:D

http://www.claybennett.com/images/archivetoons/flag_burning.jpg

I really do believe that by the time the election is over we won't hear about this again. This seems to be the best that Republicans can come up with to get support this year. Well this and gay marriage bans anyway. Smell desperation?

Yeah, and if the Dems can't beat them, that is so sad....

Amending the Constitution is a threat to the Constitution?!?!It is a threat to the core values for which our Constitution stands.

Although it would create an interesting case--at least, if we had fewer conservative whackadoos on today's court. In at least one other case, a national Supreme Court (Israel's, I think) has declared a new amendment to the constitution invalid because it violated the very deepest principles of the document. (If I remember correctly, their constitutional law has a somewhat different structure than ours... Nevertheless, very interesting; and it seems their decision stuck.) Ah, comparative law.... :cool:

hey..i resemble that remark...the sky is orange...silly boy/girl

Girl....And your correct, the sky is orange, at sunrise, so long as we dont ban the sunrise.

"The new found Northern love for the flag continued after the Civil War, but the flag’s growing popularity was not accompanied by any sense that it should be regarded as a sacred object or relic. The most common form in which it became increasingly visible in American life during the post-Civil War period was as a decorative accompaniment in the commercialization of a wide range of products, as the modern advertising industry developed amidst the rapid postwar industrialization of the nation. Gradually, after 1890, union veterans and members of traditional patriotic groups (such as the Sons of the American Revolution) began to protest what they alleged was the commercial debasement of the flag. Such commercial use, they argued, would ultimately degrade the significance of both the flag and patriotism among the general public. After about 1900, the supposed threat to the flag shifted from commercial exploitation to the threat allegedly posed by its use as a means of expressing radical protest — by the likes of political radicals, trade union members, and immigrants (who were often indiscriminately lumped together).

Between 1897 and 1932, veterans and hereditary-patriotic groups lobbied for stringent laws to “protect” the flag against all such forms of alleged “desecration” (a term heretofore used to refer to harm against sacred religious objects). Such efforts ultimately resulted in the passage of flag-desecration laws in all 48 states, with a burst of 31 states acting between 1897 and 1905 alone. The laws generally outlawed: (1) attaching anything to or placing any marks on the flag; (2) using the flag in any manner for advertising purposes; and (3) physically or even verbally “harming” flags in any way, including “publicly” mutilating, trampling, defacing, defiling, “defying” or casting “contempt,” either “by word or act,” upon the flag. The term “flag” was generally defined to mean any object of any form, size or material that resembled the American flag.

First Supreme Court rulings: advertising and flag desecration
The earliest state flag-desecration laws were quickly and, at first, successfully challenged in local and state courts as illegally restricting property rights by adversely affected commercial interests. However, in the 1907 case of Halter v. Nebraska, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld (8-1 with Justice Rufus Peckham dissenting) Nebraska’s law in sweeping terms, terms that made clear the futility of any further legal challenges for the foreseeable future. The case involved selling bottles of “Stars and Stripes” beer, which had pictures of flags on the labels. The majority, per Justice John Marshall Harlan, held that the state was entitled to restrict property rights for the valid and worthy purpose of fostering nationalism. In a ruling that did not address free-speech rights, the Court declared that “love both of the common country and of the State will diminish in proportion as respect for the flag is weakened.” The basic idea was that advertising usage of the flag tended to “degrade and cheapen it in the estimation of the people” and that the state was entitled to “exert its power to strengthen the bonds of the Union and therefore, to that end, may encourage patriotism and love of country among its people.” "
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/flagburning/overview.aspx


But of course, Barry wouldn't support this. He likes his American Flag Coffee Cup.

Thanks Anarchyel for leading me to this after I read your post.

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.

Yeah...

It's funny though, how conservatives are so defensive about private rights to private property... until burning a private possession offends them.

Arguing with Barry = :headbang:
Why are we continuing = :confused:
We all agree, except him = :fluffle:
Barry's comments: :rolleyes:
But Barry makes me feel smart! = :cool:

Geez. That was way shorter than the first post. I should just use emoticons to say everything I need to. Best get that phase in now, before Barry is offended by them and passes a constitutional ammendment banning it. :eek: Eek indeed.

now you get a fluffle/hug/kiss from me....absofuckinglutely hilarious..thanks

Let's have a laugh with this issue.

http://tempknak.home.att.net/2kangFB1.jpg

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/benson/pics/062805benson349.gif

http://www.claybennett.com/images/archivetoons/flag_burning.jpg

:D

Desegregation was mandated by the American people by the passage of the equal protection clause in the 1860's. Activist Judges ( plessy v. ferguson) stopped their voices from being heard.You seem to be confused about the meaning of the word "activist" as applied to a judge.

In Plessy v. Ferguson the Supreme Court upheld legislated policies of segregation.

A court is only "activist" when it invalidates a law. Period. Otherwise, it is considered to exercise restraint in allowing the democratic branches to have their way.

now you get a fluffle/hug/kiss from me....absofuckinglutely hilarious..thanks

I cannot find a blushing emoticon! Guess we'll do this the old fashioned way...

:Blushes:
Time for bed. My Yawning face can apparently only be in the title line. :yawns: Good night, everyone! :fluffle:

I cannot find a blushing emoticon! Guess we'll do this the old fashioned way...

:Blushes:
Time for bed. My Yawning face can apparently only be in the title line. :yawns: Good night, everyone! :fluffle:

How 'bout this one?

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/embarass.gif

Rehnquist slipped into the conference room one day and took his seat.

He pulled a magazine from his stack of papers. The National Lampoon, a humor magazine, had just released its February issue. The centerfold was entitled "Amicae Curiae"--Friends of the Court--and it depicted, in a color cartoon, all nine of the Justices engaged in a variety of sexual activity.

The Chief, naked except for a holster and pistol, was on the floor licking the boot of an otherwise naked young woman.

Brennan was standing in front of two very young girls holding his robe open.

Stewart was measuring the throat of a young woman with a ruler, apparently in preparation for oral sex.

Rehnquist, clad in a woman's bra and red garter belt, was parading before the others cracking a black whip.

White, a blindfold partially covering his glasses, was apparently engaged in some taxing sexual activity, though the cartoon did not make it clear what that activity was.

Powell was kneeling naked, his hands bound together, while a black woman in underwear marked "Exhibit A" flogged him.

Marshall stood by the side of the bench doing nothing but looking up at Douglas, who sat alone on the bench with a naked young boy at his side.

Blackmun was sodomizing a Kangaroo.

Chuckling, Rehnquist passed the issue around the table. Most of them laughed. The Chief was angered both by the cartoon and the fact that it had been brought into conference.

Afterward, Marshall sent a clerk to buy extra copies for his college-age children.

Brennan proudly told his clerks that while every other Justice was portrayed engaging in some sexual activity, he was pictured protecting several young children by blocking their view with his robe.

His clerks decided that they owed it to him to explain "flashing."

Blackmun told his clerks how funny the centerfold was, especially the portion depicting Rehnquist "in drag." The only problem, Blackmun said, was that he couldn't figure out what he was supposed to be doing with the kangaroo.

The clerks drew straws to see who would tell him.

:D

I think this discussion is very interesting. I personally think the amendment process is fair and the process of the supreme court is clearly a justified safe guard against the tyrany of the majority which is dangerous to a democracy. The fact is though the United States isn't a democracy in the least. It is based on the 6th form of government that Aristotle outlines. I can alas never remember the exact name but it's something like Multigarcy. It is a combination of Monarchy, Oligarcy and democracy. The president is the Monarch(they orginally wanted presidents to be for life or close to that), The Houses and elections are the democracy part and the supreme court is the Oligarcy. So if they are acting like a Oligarcy that is exactly how the founders had intended them to be. That history aside I will now express my views on this issue.

Banning the burning of the flag is not actually banning an action that is the action of burning the flag(as burning is the recommended way to dispose of disposing of the flag. Infact we had to do so in boyscouts once it was like a funeral) but the banning of an idea. Although I may not like the idea it is a dangerous path to take to start banning ideas. Also I may point out there are no laws that protect you from mental abuse. That being the case as long as there is no physical or financial harm to you or your property there is no legal basis for such a law.

Continuing the thought of banning of ideas would you find yourself morally justified in dictating to another exactly what thoughts he or she is aloud to have and conversely having your own throughts dictated as such. That is clearly not freedom in anyway shape or form. The arguement against this is that it's only one thing not everything, but once you make one, where do you stop? You must object to something the government is doing even if it is a very small thing, but if you start banning ideas who knows how long it will take until your not allowed to object to that without criminal persicution. For those who think that this is simply a stand alone issue there is a rule in both ethics and law called the slippery slope. Once you start down the slope it's easier and easier to keep sliding down.

On the other issue if you want ban it simply because it is insulting to you and the country you are treading down a dangerous path. If want to do that, lets ban everything that is insulting. Even if we exempt all written and spoken items that is still alot. Ever laughed at a cartoon that made fun of someone? That is clearly insulting to the person invovled and as it isn't just words(if you count words as making it ok then you'd have to make burning a flag with words on it be ok by proxy) then that would be a legally punishable offence. If it was made retroactive I'd be sueing a bunch of people from my school days as I could use the money.

Anyway that is the dangers of the issue that I see. Also I would note that people have the right to argue for or against this issue. This does not lower their personal worth. Also people have the right to amend the constitution or counter amend the constitution as they see fit. That is the safety that is built into the constitution to help it last. I will not state if I'm for or against the ban personally as emotion has no place in a logical argument and law should be logical in it creation. The execution of the law is on a human level and should take into account that justice is a shield and not a sword.

As an after thought a legal dictionary should be used to define the words of the constitution as it is a legal document.

Ninina of Aikian

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 as the amendment grants the freedom of the press, that obviously must mean TV and radio are not protected, since they do not use physical pressure to imprint the news into paper, right?

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 am goddam well sickened that our representatives are fucking around with this kind of total bullshit.

13 MILLION AMERICAN CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH TO EAT.

THE LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH FOR A PREGNANT WOMAN IN AMERICA IS BEING MURDERED BY A ROMANTIC PARTNER.

THE NATIONAL DEBT HAS BEEN INCREASING BY AN AVERAGE OF $1.74 BILLION PER DAY SINCE SEPTEMBER OF 2005.

These are examples of real problems. These are examples of the kind of shit that should automatically take precident. When everybody in America has enough to eat, and there is no crime, and we've paid off the Debt, and we've all got fucking rocket cars that run on sunbeams, THEN maybe we can afford to dick around with philosophical questions about the burning of the flag. But to hold this kind of idiotic debate now is a complete and utter embarassment to our country.

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 hate to be on the same side of an issue as Teddy Kennedy, but it's happened. This is a stupid amendment for exactly the reason mentioned by the ACLU. It isn't a make or break issue between me and my Senators, but at least they know, in very certain terms, where I stand on the issue.

As an after thought a legal dictionary should be used to define the words of the constitution as it is a legal document.

You can't. The US is a common law juristiction, meaning that the source of law is a judicial interpretation of it's origional purpose, not legislation. It's crazy.

This proposed amendment is as futile as it is unAmerican. Let's say it passes. I assume it will have some sort of definition for what consitutes an American flag (13 red and white stripes, field of blue, 50 white stars, etc.).

If someone really wanted to make a political statement by burning a flag they could (and really, is there an epidemic of flag burning?) by just burning something that looks like the American flag, but isn't (12 stripes or 49 stars).

A stupid, silly waste of time when there are so many other problems.

Man, it'll suck if they ban flag burning.

I'll have to go back to wiping my arse on it and pissing all over it.

Thank God GOP doesn't view those as offensive.

A stupid, silly waste of time when there are so many other problems.

Our educational system is in the shitter?

OMG fags are trying to merry n ruin american familiez!!!11

....

No energy policy?

Immigrants will take yer jobs!

....

Possible war with N. Korea and Iran?

Ban t3h flag bruning for 9-11!

I would not join with the ACLU for any reason...I hate the bastards

While I don’t think that an amendment making it illegal to burn the US flag I can not for the life of me understand why some @ss hole would want to do it. The flag for me is a symbol of all the sacrifice for the men and women that have given there lives to defend this nation, that means something to me. Having served in the armed forces of the Us I have a deep respect and am proud of the flag, and can say for a fact if I saw some @ss hole burning it I would beat them senseless (not that they have any to begin with.

I would not join with the ACLU for any reason...I hate the bastards
For what reason?

A stupid, silly waste of time when there are so many other problems.
I'm sure that the ACLU should be wasting its time on something more important.

While I don’t think that an amendment making it illegal to burn the US flag I can not for the life of me understand why some @ss hole would want to do it. The flag for me is a symbol of all the sacrifice for the men and women that have given there lives to defend this nation, that means something to me. Having served in the armed forces of the Us I have a deep respect and am proud of the flag, and can say for a fact if I saw some @ss hole burning it I would beat them senseless (not that they have any to begin with.
Beating someone for a piece of cloth no matter what it stands for is far more despicable then any flag burning or spitting on solders could ever be.

Don’t get me wrong I never have and never will burn a flag, it is speech that I do not agree with. But just because I dislike it does not give me the duty, the right, or reasonable justification for harming another.

While I don’t think that an amendment making it illegal to burn the US flag I can not for the life of me understand why some @ss hole would want to do it. The flag for me is a symbol of all the sacrifice for the men and women that have given there lives to defend this nation, that means something to me. Having served in the armed forces of the Us I have a deep respect and am proud of the flag, and can say for a fact if I saw some @ss hole burning it I would beat them senseless (not that they have any to begin with.

Those men and women that you praise so eloquently in your post, died fighting for the freedoms that mean those 'Assholes' can burn your flag. To try and ban such an action, or to attack those doing it, is to attack the very freedoms they fought to save.

I'm sure that the ACLU should be wasting its time on something more important.
Their organization is focused on preserving civil liberties of the constitution (supposedly). What other threats other then this is more important to that cause at this point in time?

I'm sure that the ACLU should be wasting its time on something more important.
Like working to prevent the legislation of another blow to free speech? .. oh wait..

Like working to prevent the legislation of another blow to free speech? .. oh wait..

I think DK was being sarcastic in response to the post he quoted.

For what reason?

For on the ACLU has become anti-American and do anything they can to harm or discredit the USA. Two many of the cases that have taken up hard more they help, of example siding with MBLA that they have the right to advocate and encourage child rape is ok. And the list goes on and on. I hate the present ACLU.

Those men and women that you praise so eloquently in your post, died fighting for the freedoms that mean those 'Assholes' can burn your flag. To try and ban such an action, or to attack those doing it, is to attack the very freedoms they fought to save.


They can burn my flag and call it freedom of speech; I can defend the flag and the service of all that have made the ultimate sacrifice by stopping them from burring the flag, by taking the flag from them and if they try to stop me I will defend myself and call it freedom of speech.

They can burn my flag and call it freedom of speech; I can defend the flag and the service of all that have made the ultimate sacrifice by stopping them from burring the flag, by taking the flag from them and if they try to stop me I will defend myself and call it freedom of speech.

Violence is not Freedom of Speech. Neither is stealing a persons property.

Their organization is focused on preserving civil liberties of the constitution (supposedly). What other threats other then this is more important to that cause at this point in time?
Emphasis on "supposedly".

They seem to pick and choose the Amendments and rights they feel fit to defend. As though the Constitution was a salad bar.

Beating someone for a piece of cloth no matter what it stands for is far more despicable then any flag burning or spitting on solders could ever be.

I disagree; it is about defending that flag. If some @ss hole hates it here so much the feel they have to burn the flag, they should leave, why live in a country you hate that much when you have the freedom to leave, that right that was fought for by others.

Don’t get me wrong I never have and never will burn a flag, it is speech that I do not agree with. But just because I dislike it does not give me the duty, the right, or reasonable justification for harming another.

I guess the flag means more to me then it does to you….

They can burn my flag and call it freedom of speech; I can defend the flag and the service of all that have made the ultimate sacrifice by stopping them from burring the flag, by taking the flag from them and if they try to stop me I will defend myself and call it freedom of speech.

If it isn't your property then you'll be the one ending up in cuffs. My grandfather died in vietnam, my greatgrand father has shrapnel in his leg from WWI, and my other grandfather was a mechanic for the airforce for a number of years.

So stfu about this flag and the ultimate sacrifice, because the last war that really meant a damn was WWII and most of those veterans are wise enough to not care if you burn a piece of cloth.

It's a flag, not a soldier on a stick. Get over it.

I guess the flag means more to me then it does to you….
A flag is a flag. It may be a symbol, but it's still a flag.

They can burn my flag and call it freedom of speech; I can defend the flag and the service of all that have made the ultimate sacrifice by stopping them from burring the flag, by taking the flag from them and if they try to stop me I will defend myself and call it freedom of speech.

You can also get hit for theft.

Here's the rub. The point of the matter is that burning the flag IS a form of speech and protest. By tyring to refuse them the right to, you're attacking the very freedoms you claim you have defended.

I'm also a vet and am currently in the USAR. I find flag burning to be disgusting, and reprehensible. However, I will not have a law saying that people shouldn't be allowed to do it.

Remember the military addage: "I may not like what they have to say but I will defend w/ my life their right to say it."

Effete liberalism at its best.

Mocking and namecalling is ALWAYS a substitute for argument. Clearly, you win.

I guess the flag means more to me then it does to you….
Possibly, possibly not ... either way I dont let my emotions rule me

Emphasis on "supposedly".

They seem to pick and choose the Amendments and rights they feel fit to defend. As though the Constitution was a salad bar.
Oh sorry that they don't spend their money doing the NRA's job. I guess that makes them worthless to you since the right to have a gun is the most important right of all.

They can burn my flag and call it freedom of speech; I can defend the flag and the service of all that have made the ultimate sacrifice by stopping them from burring the flag, by taking the flag from them and if they try to stop me I will defend myself and call it freedom of speech.
Stealing someone’s private property and then beating them up when they try to recover said property != freedom of speech

Emphasis on "supposedly".

They seem to pick and choose the Amendments and rights they feel fit to defend. As though the Constitution was a salad bar.
Which is why I put supposedly as we have to go with their stated purpose to determine what SHOULD be important to them.

As far as picking and choosing about the only one I have seen them go lighter on is possibly the 2nd amendment, which with a group like the NRA (when they don’t team up with them) seems to have that covered.

Which is why I put supposedly as we have to go with their stated purpose to determine what SHOULD be important to them.

As far as picking and choosing about the only one I have seen them go lighter on is possibly the 2nd amendment, which with a group like the NRA (when they don’t team up with them) seems to have that covered.

Their argument for not supporting the 2nd seems to be based on the fact that they view it to be a settled matter as a matter of case law.

Now, if they applied that to the other Amendments, we can assume that as soon as something is settled case law, they'll abandon it.

Why would I EVER join the ACLU (the American Traitor's Union) in ANYTHING- they do nothing but harass my Church, my State, my Country, and ME. I hate the ACLU- they could be the head of Satan for all I care. They are the most evil body that exists in the United States, next to Al-Qaida holes. Every last one of 'em can burn in Hell while they burn the flag. :gundge: :sniper: :mp5:

Why would I EVER join the ACLU (the American Traitor's Union) in ANYTHING- they do nothing but harass my Church, my State, my Country, and ME. I hate the ACLU- they could be the head of Satan for all I care. They are the most evil body that exists in the United States, next to Al-Qaida holes. Every last one of 'em can burn in Hell while they burn the flag. :gundge: :sniper: :mp5:
We really have to come up with a rating system that accurately reflects the degradation of the quality of posts as the number of gun smiles increase.

Possibly a simple linear

Final=Initial Quality – D1[GreenSmily]*2 – D2[Sniper]*1 – D3[Mp5]*1

We really have to come up with a rating system that accurately reflects the degradation of the quality of posts as the number of gun smiles increase.

Possibly a simple linear

Final=Initial Quality – D1[GreenSmily]*2 – D2[Sniper]*1 – D3[Mp5]*1
I'd go with an exponential curve, myself. At least whenever that green lazer-shooting one is involved.

Why would I EVER join the ACLU ?

If you don't support the Bill of Rights, American liberty, or the Constitution you probably wouldn't.

I don't know why every American isn't a member, but then there are many Americans who have no clue what this country stand for.

If you don't support the Bill of Rights, American liberty, or the Constitution you probably wouldn't.

I don't know why every American isn't a member, but then there are many Americans who have no clue what this country stand for.
I didn't buy the ACLUs refusal to support all the Amendments, so I didn't join.

I'd go with an exponential curve, myself. At least whenever that green lazer-shooting one is involved.
The green goop shooter got the heavier weight if you see but we can do exponential too (weighted exponential)

Final=Initial Quality – D1[GreenSmily] – D2[Sniper]^QuantitySniper – D3[Mp5]^QuantityMp5

Why would I EVER join the ACLU (the American Traitor's Union) in ANYTHING- they do nothing but harass my Church, my State, my Country, and ME. I hate the ACLU- they could be the head of Satan for all I care. They are the most evil body that exists in the United States, next to Al-Qaida holes. Every last one of 'em can burn in Hell while they burn the flag. :gundge: :sniper: :mp5:
Don't believe everything the pamphlets you get in the mail tell you.

my greatgrand father has shrapnel in his leg from WWI
Wow!! How old is he?!

The ACLU are the people who want to change the Los Angeles city coat of arms because it has religious connotations, no?

The ACLU are the people who want to change the Los Angeles city coat of arms because it has religious connotations, no?
Yep.

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.

1. Public property means it belongs to the public. You are not the public, you are a member of the public, not the entire public

2. You have whatever right you like to do to whatever is your property. If you have purchased the flag with your own money, then you have that right to burn it, or to bury it or to do anything you want

3. You should never have to recite the pledge of alliegence

As, I believe, is my right to beat the living sh*t out of anyone I catch doing it.

Fortunately, the rest of the civilized world recognizes that as assault.

Fortunately, the rest of the civilized world recognizes that as assault.

But they're just Hippies!

flag burning ban failed in Senate by one vote. Let's never talk about it again.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13579789/

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

Funny: the most revered American heroes were great protesters. You know, like Patrick Henry?

3. You should never have to recite the pledge of alliegence

Correct sir.

WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al. V. BARNETTE et al.
No. 591.

Argued March 11, 1943.
Decided June 14, 1943.

The court decided that one cannot be compelled to recite the pledge of allegiance.

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


Please enumerate for me where it says in the Constitution that we need to protect the flag, or heterosexual marriage, or any of the nonsense we've been hearing lately?

Compare this to the limits placed on the government of the United States in order to prevent it from becoming oppressive to the people of the US.

Let me know what you come up with.

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.
Only certain organizations are authorized to properly dispose of the flag by burning.

There is a massive difference in destroying a flag "..in a dignified way, preferably by burning." and burning, spitting upon and trampling it.

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.

It is relevant given that this is a direct response to your announcement that you pledge allegiance to the flag, not to the protestor.

Because.... the "Stars and Stripes" is a SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION of the concept UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

It can be argued that that particular configuration of colors and the proportions thereof is shorthand for US of A.

Sounds like speech to me.

Because.... the "Stars and Stripes" is a SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION of the concept UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

It can be argued that that particular configuration of colors and the proportions thereof is shorthand for US of A.

Sounds like speech to me.

Not that I care about flag burning one way or the other, but theoretically, if a flag burner accepts the risk of being beaten up by another citizen, that beater accepts the risk of being jailed for assault.

Frankly, I think that burning the flag is a silly way to protest things American, but that's me.

Nope, the definition is like that because of activist liberal judges who have warped and swelled the Constitution for decades.

Through the Looking Glass[/I]"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

Hmmm..... so how's the view from that wall?

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.

Slavery was constitutional until it was abolished. Says right in the constitution that a person of African heritage was only worth 3/5th of a white man in terms of census.

Therefore, those who struck it down were "legislating from the bench" and "put their own code of morality into interpretation."

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.

I was born in the US too.
Your attitude restricting freedoms of the American people enumerated for them IN the constitution is repugnant.

Some people bitch about protestors. Guess what? That's in the first amendment, also. You know, the part about "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"?

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.

Also, do we really want to go down the route where burning, for example, a BOOK is a crime punishable by death, simply because of what that BOOK represents?

It's pretty much equivalent: criminalizing flag burning to criminalizing the desecration of a book and imprisoning or executing people for it..... just as is done in the world today, hmmmmm?

The yanks want to make flag-burning illegal so they can invade Iran to look for matches.

Only certain organizations are authorized to properly dispose of the flag by burning.

There is a massive difference in destroying a flag "..in a dignified way, preferably by burning." and burning, spitting upon and trampling it.But if I trample it, I might burn my feet.

Can't I pee on it instead?

But if I trample it, I might burn my feet.

Can't I pee on it instead?
Man up and trample on it.

The main question at issue here is "Is is right to destroy symbol in protest, even if that symbol is held sacred by many"

First off, I am an american, born and raised. I must first indicate that throughout our history, the country was founded on the ideals of freedom of thought and expression. The framers of the constituion came out of a repressive, authorian regeme that cared little for the desires and the needs of the populace at large. The designed the constitution to spacifically not allow any repression of idea, to allow for the freedom of the attainment of our inhibitions and desires.

"However, while this concession is wrested from them by the very practice of action, it is in the name of action that they attempt to condemn a philosophy of freedom. They declare authoritatively that the existence of freedom would make any concerted enterprise impossible. According to them, if the individual were not constrained by the external world to want this rather than that, there would be nothing to defend him against his whims."

ethics of ambiguity (http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/existentialism/debeauvoir/ambiguity.html)

She is saying that when one is acting in the best intrest of someone by restricting freedom, they destroy the freedom the tried to attain. She continues on comenting that it is in the best interest of society to promote and protect all forms of freedom, to be allowed to express our desires fully.

Threfore it is in our best intrerest to not ban flag burning in order to best promote the freedom of all.

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?

A flag which did not even exist when the Constitution was writen as it does today. :rolleyes:

Speech is a form of expression ( one of many)

If you could get that country music ban up for a vote as an amendment I would happily lobby for it.

Lyrics = speech.

You know, the flag sellers in the middle east must make a killing.

The first Amendment would be altered but not destroyed.

So you admit you want to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, not UPHOLD what it's said for hundreds of years.

And yet you say you want to uphold what it's said for hundreds of years.

Contradiction much?

Did anyone elise notice that when they were pissed at denmark for those muhamud cartoons, they burned american flags?

Did anyone elise notice that when they wee pissed at denmark for thosee muhamud cartoons, they burned american flags?

I don't think they had any Danish flags in stock, so they figured the American one was close enough.

Lyrics = speech.
And music = freedom of expression.

It is not complicated. Speech is made of words. Words can be articulated without speaking ( like sign langauge).

And the middle finger quite clearly translates into the words "fuck you". (NOT DIRECTED AT ANYONE IN THIS THREAD!!!!)

Just as sign language has gestures which mean boy (gesturing as if touching the brim of a cap).

You have stated that sign language is language and therefore speech. Well,

In Sign Language, facial expression including the raising or lowering of the eyebrows while signing, and body language are integral parts of communicating. These actions help give meaning to what is being signed, much like vocal tones and inflections give meaning to spoken words. http://www.masterstech-home.com/ASLDict.html

It's just a flag for crying out loud. Is some burning cloth really that much of a threat to the notions and ideals it represents? (Even if we ignore that fact that one of those primary ideals is freedom of speech/expression.)

It's just a flag for crying out loud. Is some burning cloth really that much of a threat to the notions and ideals it represents? (Even if we ignore that fact that one of those primary ideals is freedom of speech/expression.)
It depends on how weak you believe your country to be.