Burning the flag is illegal: a constitutional amendment

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, July 2, 2005 02:01
VIEWED: 16637
PAGE 4 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

PERFESSERGEE

Saturday, June 25, 2005 8:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Woopee! So we're going to make the Flag the American version of the Quran, and get our panties all in a bunch if anyone burns it. WRONG!

I see the burning of the Flag as the highest symbol of our freedom. That our people have the right to destroy the very avatar of our country is an affirmation of our system of government. Taking this away is a BIG mistake.

YES! For that matter, HELL YES! (and even AMEN!). Let me try and clarify it for those of you who have trouble reasoning: If you are not willing to defend (and I don't mean "tolerate" here folks, I mean stick your neck out and DEFEND, gorramit) the rights of those who want to say things that you absolutely despise, then you cannot logically or morally defend your own rights to speak up for what you believe. Anything less is sheer blind demagoguery, and is morally bankrupt and itself despicable. If you can't understand that defending the rights of others to speak doesn't mean that you agree with their viewpoint, then please go back to kindergarten and start to re-educate yourself about the ethics of the playground during recess.

However, one can always disagree and point out the flaws in someone else's reasoning (including mine) - ye gods, isn't that the whole basis of this section of threads? You can even flame them beyond belief, but the gods will probably also agree that you aren't going to change anybody's mind or even influence their thinking that way. But if all you want to do is flame..............

Just another cent or two's worth from my viewpoint.

perfessergee

CONNORFLYNN

Saturday, June 25, 2005 1:27 PM

Great post. I think in general the world places WAY to much emphasis on the physical and less on the psychological.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, June 25, 2005 1:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
Just another cent or two's worth from my viewpoint.
perfessergee

I'd buy that for a dollar.
Well said. That sums up everything I really feel about it, but am not good enough in English in writing to type.

Inarticulate Chrisisall

ROCKETJOCK

Saturday, June 25, 2005 5:39 PM

If someone burns a flag, they are burning a piece of cloth. That's the physical act.

If they are protesting what they perceive the flag standing for, that's an act of free speech, which is constitutionally protected. That's the symbolic act.

If you pass a law saying you can't perform the physical act because of what the piece of cloth stands for, you are forbidding a symbolic act. You are limiting freedom of speech.

To me, that's the real desecration.

"Do you know what the definition of a hero is? It's somebody who gets somebody else killed." -- Zoë Warren

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, June 25, 2005 6:14 PM

This sudden love for all things “freedom of speech” is nice and all, but in order for freedom of speech to be a real thing, it must exist independent of burning the flag. Please forgive my cynicism, but I remember using the same arguments many of you are now using to argue against hate-speech, speech-codes and to a certain degree hate-crimes during the Clinton Administration. If we should have the right to burn the flag, shouldn’t we also have the right to burn a cross?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

OPUS

Saturday, June 25, 2005 7:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:

YES! For that matter, HELL YES! (and even AMEN!). Let me try and clarify it for those of you who have trouble reasoning: If you are not willing to defend (and I don't mean "tolerate" here folks, I mean stick your neck out and DEFEND, gorramit) the rights of those who want to say things that you absolutely despise, then you cannot logically or morally defend your own rights to speak up for what you believe. Anything less is sheer blind demagoguery, and is morally bankrupt and itself despicable. If you can't understand that defending the rights of others to speak doesn't mean that you agree with their viewpoint, then please go back to kindergarten and start to re-educate yourself about the ethics of the playground during recess.

So you're willing to fight and die for the rights of Nambla, a pedophile organization who publish a book entitled "Rape and Escape"? The book tells how to lure, befriend and rape a child, then escape detection and or prosecution.
Call me a facist if you will but I think there are limits to speech that deserves defending.
Regarding the flag, politicians show boating, even in the unlikely event it made it through both houses, two thirds of the states, I think, have to approve it. Never happen. I don't agree with it either.
The people who do choose to burn flags to get attention or make a point, end of alienating a vast group of people. So basically they're just children throwing a temper tantrum to get attention.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, June 25, 2005 7:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
This sudden love for all things “freedom of speech” is nice and all, but in order for freedom of speech to be a real thing, it must exist independent of burning the flag. Please forgive my cynicism, but I remember using the same arguments many of you are now using to argue against hate-speech, speech-codes and to a certain degree hate-crimes during the Clinton Administration. If we should have the right to burn the flag, shouldn’t we also have the right to burn a cross?

Yes.

But if burning a cross, or a flag, incites a riot the gets people killed, you've committed a crime. If it targets specific individuals or groups for persecution, it's wrong.

I can see many scenarios where burning a flag would be, and should be, illegal. It's a matter of context. But those scenarios all involve other offenses that are already illegal. There's nothing inherent in the act of setting a piece of cloth on fire that brings harm to others.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, June 25, 2005 9:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Yes.

But if burning a cross, or a flag, incites a riot the gets people killed, you've committed a crime. If it targets specific individuals or groups for persecution, it's wrong.

Well it stands to reason that it is wrong, but that’s a judgment call. I think a lot of things are wrong, but does that mean the state should suppress the freedom of expression because I believe something is wrong? Let’s say that I’m a racist who believes that the nation is better off having a “pure race,” whatever that means. Then if I protest our lack of purity, as it were, in our race by burning a cross, should I be committing a crime?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, June 25, 2005 9:21 PM

If it can be construed as a threat, yes it should be illegal. If you're just expressing your opinion, then no.

Did you get what I was saying? I was agreeing with you. A lot of the hate-crime stuff is as stupid as the flag burning ammendment. The way I see it, there have to be victims before something like that can legitimately be called a crime.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, June 25, 2005 9:39 PM

Yeah, I understand what you were saying. I was just clarifying, I guess.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE