Originally Posted By RoadTrip I believe so, yes. You can protest without desecrating a symbol of America. Burning a flag in protest makes about as much sense as shooting a Bald Eagle in protest.
Originally Posted By mele I think creating a law about flag burning and prosecuting people for breaking that law is a waste of time and money. How many flags are really burned? I understand the symbolism and I would never burn one myself, but the people who burn flags only want attention. Arresting them is giving them exactly what they want.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I do not think flag burning should be illegal. Obviously, it's legal if you're disposing of a flag. So by definition, if you burn one in protest and can be prosecuted for it, the government is prosecuting you not for the act, but for the idea behind the act. And that is contrary to the first ammendment. The cross-buring thing doesn't work as an analogy, because that's not directed at the government, but an act of intimidation against an individual. And the first ammendment only protects us vis a vis the government. So, for example, if I stand up in public and say "George Bush is a poopyhead! And so is his mother!" the first ammendment protects me. But if I march into my boss's office and say "You're a poopyhead! And so is your mother!" the first ammendment does not protect me if he wants to fire me. And mele is right too - there are, what, 50 flags burned in protest by US citizens every year - at the most? So we would ammend our constitution and place restrictions on the first ammendment - enshrining that in the constitution and setting that precedent for ALL of us - so that we could punish a handful of malcontents? No thanks.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Burning a flag is no more 'speech' than burning a cross in a black family's yard is 'speech'." You can burn a cross all you want, that is not illegal. Just not in someone else's yard.
Originally Posted By DAR When my flag got ripped last summer, I just to took to a local veterans hall and had them properly dispose of it. <<The cross-buring thing >> Does that still occur?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<So we would ammend our constitution and place restrictions on the first ammendment - enshrining that in the constitution and setting that precedent for ALL of us - so that we could punish a handful of malcontents? No thanks.>> I would never amend the Constitution to do it. I think a law banning it could be carefully crafted so that it held up to challenges. If not... then it doesn't get done.
Originally Posted By FaMulan Road Trip, see this page, post 233. <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/default.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-78237-P-24&Refresh=0804123607" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/de fault.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-78237-P-24&Refresh=0804123607</a> Better yet: "The Supreme Court has held that flag burning is symbolic expression and a form of speech and is therefore protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Some of the cases regarding flag burning: U. S. vs O'Brien (1968) Schact vs. U. S. (1970) Spence vs. Washington (1974) Texas vs Johnson (1989) United States v. Eichman More information can be found here, including the text of the Court: <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup" target="_blank">http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup</a> ct/search/index.html " Flag burning is protected symbolic speech.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Does that still occur?>> Yes, it does. All the time. Just Google it if you doubt that.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Yes, it does. All the time. Just Google it if you doubt that.>> I guess I don't really pay that much attention because us Yankees up in Wisconsin don't really partake in said activity.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Many of the decisions were very narrowly written. A broader decision was never made until 1989 and even then the vote way very close; 5-4. Source: <a href="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/flagburning/overview.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.firstamendmentcente r.org/Speech/flagburning/overview.aspx</a> With the new Bush Court I think a properly crafted bill would be found Constitutional
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I guess I don't really pay that much attention because us Yankees up in Wisconsin don't really partake in said activity.>> It happens with unfortunate frequency here in Yankee Minnesota. I think it probably does in almost every state.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<<Yes, it does. All the time. Just Google it if you doubt that.>> I guess I don't really pay that much attention because us Yankees up in Wisconsin don't really partake in said activity.< Now in winter time, the heat could be welcome - LOL! ( from your neighbor just to the south)
Originally Posted By vbdad55 easily solved, but this will not go over big here, just make it a local ordinance that if you want to burn a flag for whatever reason, you have to do it in front of 5 enlisted marines..and let them be the judge of the action..and response
Originally Posted By vbdad55 yeah I saw that natural gas prices at an all time high due to the heat wave on the east coast ( like we didnt have it too) and the fact the power plants are using up the natural gas ---- get ready for this winters bills - yikes !
Originally Posted By vbdad55 has Rush agreed to that outcome ? I heard an MIT scientist once told someone who told someone that it actually helps the air......... ( sorry couldn't resist after discussion on similar topic )- LOL !
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 This thread is not about flag-burning. Perhaps someone would like to start one.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Lets see here. I get called all kinds of names on here by people who complain about the words I use?? Nice hypocricy from the libs. The moderators must be on vacation because they are not exactly sticking to the no personal attack rule this week. I simply point out that it makes no sense to give someone extra jail time for a crime where the person is "said "to be a hater or bigot. It makes no sense because being a hater and a bigot is not a crime unto itself. Why should it all of a sudden command extra jail time when it is involved in a crime? But liberals don't care about making sense, they just know they have a way to stick it to people they don't like even if it violates first amendment laws all over the place. To say the bigot who hates blacks will get EXTRA jail time for acting on his bigotry is crazy. It is simply making up rules as we go along that make the PC crowd feel better about themselves. How sweet. Screw consistency in the law. Lets just give people more jail time because we don't like their thoughts or the words they say. Man, if we could only get the libs to hate the terrorists with this much passion instead of them getting terrorists a whole new set of rights and lawyers for free. It also doesn't make me a bigot or a hate monger for pointing this out STPH. But nice cheap shot. I feel like I am in Jr high again reading your constant low level postings. Try winning a debate for a change. There is no logic to enforce hate crimes. It's bogus reasoning even if it is the current flawed law in my opinion. Even Rhenquist, a hero of mine got it wrong. I think the law is a bad law, so what? Is that a crime on here, to disagree with a law? I'm not acting like you gay marriage fans who want to ignore the law and use activist judges to get your way. Or worse yet, have Gavin Newsome just go around the same sex marriage laws as you libs applauded his lawbreaking. So spare me. I have also pointed out that the hate crime laws are not going to be enforced in all hate situations because that doesn't fit the liberal PC model of political cleansing they so want to enforce. A white guy who hates another white guy, then attacks the white guy is NOT going to get this stupid hate crime penalty now is he? WHY? ( this question will be once again ignored. Details, details you know ) So we end up with a standard where only CERTAIN types of hate become hate crimes. We have certain levels of hate that we are now going to grade for extra jail time. You basically have to be a minority or a gay person to get this special bonus jail time handed down to you attacker. I guess to liberals that is perfectly fine and fair. But to clear thinking people who win elections, this is about as unfair and unjust as your going to get.
