Please note: as a First Amendment absolutist, I believe wholeheartedly that flag burning is protected speech.
That said....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“You’re on fire! You’re on fire, stupid!” a Cleveland officer shouted at a protester while firing the extinguishing spray. |
Link - (
New Window )
exactly.
Quote:
isn't it?
Sort of. Virginia v. Black held that cross-burning prohibitions are constitutional only when there is a clear intent to intimidate with the threat of bodily harm. The burden is on the state to prove that intent.
Thomas's dissent is probably my favorite thing he has written. Ultimately I think the Majority has the law correct, but his call to acknowledge what the cross burning obviously was meant to do is important. He should have started it by referring to the other justices as "The cracker-ass crackers in the Majority".
Man, there's going to be a lot of Out of the Office Auto Replies on Turkish emails.
they were in the outfield of a baseball stadium during a game. I don't know the legal term, trespassing maybe? but they were committing a different crime that superseded their 1st amendment rights.
You're fine to burn a cross in your yard should you chose to (depending on the laws in your township.)
Of course, those laws have nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with fire safety.
The burning a cross analogy is kinda silly considering that the entire purpose is to burn the cross in the yard of the folks you are trying to intimidate.
I'm not sure if I'm familiar with the ol' "burn a flag in whitey's yard to get them to move out of our neighborhood" tactic.
the cynical side of me says a cop was yelling 'you're on fire', but thinking 'take this douchebag' while dousing a guy with a fire extinguisher.
or it may just be another shitty written or edited (which took out the relevant parts) article.
Interestingly, the "Johnson" in TX v. Johnson was arrested yesterday protesting the RNC convention.
Link - ( New Window )
isnt that free speech?
I mean you hope people don't do it as a form of protest, since many find it disrespectful, but once you limit it you start chipping away at the first amendment and it's only a matter of time before the next thing gets removed from protection and before you know it we're a bunch of communists with restricted speech.
I think you just have to hope incidents like this happen more often.
Jints in Carolina : 10:27 am : link : reply
make the flag flame retardant.
Too expensive. We have them made in China for a reason.
I mean you hope people don't do it as a form of protest, since many find it disrespectful, but once you limit it you start chipping away at the first amendment and it's only a matter of time before the next thing gets removed from protection and before you know it we're a bunch of communists with restricted speech.
I think you just have to hope incidents like this happen more often.
Thanks, never knew about that play. I just read up about it and truly great play by Rick Monday to save the flag.
The difference between the legal and common definitions of speech is maddening
Personally, I find it far more abhorrent to see what so many do with the flag: use it as an adornment, a patch for clothing, a pattern for furniture or whatever. most people who drink out of a stars and stripes cup think they're being patriotic, but are violating the golden rule of holding the flag sacred.
That's certainly a different view. If that's what you were striving for, kudos.
This is a great summation of how the 1st amendment works. No need to change anything.
People who blithely disrespect the flag out of ignorance are folks who are ignoramuses in regards to flag etiquette. Perhaps my comment was a bit harsh because so many people are ignorant when it comes to flag etiquette, so they don't know any better, so let me amend it to say that if you drink out of a stars and stripes cup AND castigate flag burning, you are the utmost of ignoramus and worthy of contempt.
If someone safely burns their inanimate object, nothing bad actually happens. You may get all offended but no harm is actually done.
If you start chipping away at our own freedom of expression then damage is actually done to us.
Personally, I find it far more abhorrent to see what so many do with the flag: use it as an adornment, a patch for clothing, a pattern for furniture or whatever. most people who drink out of a stars and stripes cup think they're being patriotic, but are violating the golden rule of holding the flag sacred.
I have a tattoo of the American flag on my upper arm, is that abhorrent to you?
Quote:
to advocate the overthrow of a gov't, but otherwise, we should be able to say the USA sucks. it's misguided to burn a flag, because the flag is a symbol of what the USA could/should be (the flag is NOT any given administration), but if burning it is your way of saying USA sucks, it should be allowed.
Personally, I find it far more abhorrent to see what so many do with the flag: use it as an adornment, a patch for clothing, a pattern for furniture or whatever. most people who drink out of a stars and stripes cup think they're being patriotic, but are violating the golden rule of holding the flag sacred.
I have a tattoo of the American flag on my upper arm, is that abhorrent to you?
Right on!
Quote:
I hate that ruling. A flag burner is instigating assault. I or hopefully someone else before I get there will try to beat the hell out of you. Yes, I'll be arrested for assault. I'm ok with that. Find a better way to get your point across.
THIS !!!!!
Until he drills you with his licensed, concealed Glock Mini .45!
Quote:
Don't I need a permit or something.
You're fine to burn a cross in your yard should you chose to (depending on the laws in your township.)
Of course, those laws have nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with fire safety.
The burning a cross analogy is kinda silly considering that the entire purpose is to burn the cross in the yard of the folks you are trying to intimidate.
I'm not sure if I'm familiar with the ol' "burn a flag in whitey's yard to get them to move out of our neighborhood" tactic.
In that case, it has to be a Rebel flag.
if you treat it as a bit of skin art/jewelry/bit of clothing/etc, yeah I have a problem with it, as it violates flag etiquette.
flag etiquette allows for flag patches on military personnel.
if you treat it as a bit of skin art/jewelry/bit of clothing/etc, yeah I have a problem with it, as it violates flag etiquette.
flag etiquette allows for flag patches on military personnel.
Flag etiquette was created as a guideline, not a law. It was created to ensure no disrespectful use of the flag was taking place.
Proudly wearing a shirt (or tattoo) that says USA and has a flag on it is the furthest thing flag etiquette was created to prevent.
actually wearing a flag as clothing is probably against any interpretation of the code, but clothing with a flag on it, hardly, IMO.
I wasn't thinking of a flag emblem sewn on to an arm sleeve, although admittedly, patch could be taken that way.
Quote:
In comment 13040427 Csonka said:
Quote:
Don't I need a permit or something.
You're fine to burn a cross in your yard should you chose to (depending on the laws in your township.)
Of course, those laws have nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with fire safety.
The burning a cross analogy is kinda silly considering that the entire purpose is to burn the cross in the yard of the folks you are trying to intimidate.
I'm not sure if I'm familiar with the ol' "burn a flag in whitey's yard to get them to move out of our neighborhood" tactic.
In that case, it has to be a Rebel flag.
See, that should be illegal.
His tweets towards Leslie Jones were terrible but it makes for interesting discussion...
His tweets towards Leslie Jones were terrible but it makes for interesting discussion...
if they're consistent in their banning (unlike facebook who is overwhelmingly left wing) than I have no issue with it.
Milo is banned from a ton of places, but Arianna Huffington isn't, such a double-standard.
They didn't define "speech", but it certainly can be argued that it was aimed at verbal and written speech at the time. Not some symbolic gesture of burning flags or draft cards.
The Supreme Court cases in 1989 and 1990 overturned flag burning laws by a 5-4 margin, so this isn't some simple issue. And proposed flag desecration have been voted on in Congress many times, failing to pass the Senate by 1 vote in 2006.
And the "absolute" free speech right has been amended many times. While it says Congress shall make no law ... they've made exceptions in the 20th and 21st centuries, for example there are things that are not protected by the 1st amendment if said at school functions.
It would be a lot better if less people were retarDED. ;-)
This is especially true of religion, and one in particular, that receives more protection from the first amendment (in the US) and free speech, in general, under the guise of religious sensitivities, than all other religion and ideologies put together.
Haha! That they would probably whine about how the second hand smoke is hurting junior.
Support of the first amendment is not a liberal thing, conservatives are some of the most staunchest defenders of the first amendment.
Conservatives are typically the ones who have issues with flag burning, but in general believe it's a slippery slope when you start pulling at the edges.
Yep, I misread your comment. Sorry.