Burning the flag is illegal: a constitutional amendment

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, July 2, 2005 02:01
VIEWED: 16637
PAGE 8 of 10

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

SERGEANTX

Monday, June 27, 2005 5:44 AM

Ok, so what you're saying is, even if freedom of speech is protected, there will be thugs out there ready to get violent when offended. I suppose that's pretty much always been the case. I'd imagine those daring enough to burn a flag in protest will be watching their backs.

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

G1223

Monday, June 27, 2005 7:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Ok, so what you're saying is, even if freedom of speech is protected, there will be thugs out there ready to get violent when offended. I suppose that's pretty much always been the case. I'd imagine those daring enough to burn a flag in protest will be watching their backs.

SergeantX

Those Thugs might be Vets who bled and lost friends in defense of that flag. They feel that someone burning spits on their pain and suffering. But those Thugs are Americans and they feel that the Thugs are those wanting to burn their flag and then be protected by the laws that flag represents.

So those thugs feel that the protesters are they themselves the thugs.

TANSTAAFL

SERGEANTX

Monday, June 27, 2005 8:05 AM

I see. You want to have it both ways. You want to pretend you support freedom of speech, when in reality you think it's ok for people to beat up someone expressing an opinion they don't like.

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

G1223

Monday, June 27, 2005 9:23 AM

I am trying to point out that a burner's free speech is protected and the attacker will face punishment. But I can see where they have a reason for being being offended or are you saying that burning a cross on the grounds of black church a form of free speech?

Now as to the amendment. I never favored the marriage amedment because it was direct social engineering and that is why I do not favor this idea.

TANSTAAFL

PERFESSERGEE

Monday, June 27, 2005 9:59 AM

(Regretably long response below, please bear with me)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Opus:
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.

As for me - Yes. Information is not action. If someone tries to actually do this sort of stuff, hang them out to dry. But if you can ban this book, what happens if the majority decides to ban books about safe sex, or contraception...or how to make home brew, or reload ammunition in your basement, or grow pot in your basement, or set up a grassroots organization to protest government actions, or raise funds for third parties, etc. etc. etc. It's that old slippery slope.

@Opus and Geezer: Since it was my response to Geezer’s original post that occasioned this “subthread”, it’s time that I replied myself. Sorry I didn’t reply sooner – life’s a bit busy. And I’m sorry that this is such a damned long post, but the topic of freedom of speech is way too important for off-the-cuff and thoughtless responses.

At first blush, Opus seems to raise a useful point about nambla, an organization whose values I personally find to be truly despicable (I refuse to dignify them by using upper case letters for their acronym – there’s nothing “upper case” about them). I’m thankfully not alone in my viewpoint, which helps to make this a very valuable case study (thanks Opus). However, there are some very important and actually not very subtle distinctions to be made here, and this is the crux of the matter: Thought, and the public expression of thought, are completely distinct from acting on that thought, and yet again distinct from inciting others to act on that thought. Let me take up the latter case first, since that is what Opus originally cited, by invoking a particularly reprehensible publication associated with the organization under discussion (I won’t give them any more web hit possibilities than I have to; see other posts on this thread).

Inciting someone to commit a crime or to harm others is not protected speech under the US Constitution, and never has been. I don’t want to get into arguments about “prior restraint” here (something the courts have consistently held to be unacceptable under our Constitution); that’s a subject for another thread. If they’ve published incitement, prosecute them, sue them, take away their homes, make them crawl under the woodwork where they belong (as the anti-neo-nazis have successfully done with the cretin neo-hitlerites in the Pacific Northwest). As to the middle case, if they’ve actually *acted* on those ideas, then may the gods be merciful, ‘cause the rest of us decent folk sure as hell shouldn’t be. Mercy is for them that show some towards others, and may the members of nambla burn long and hot in a very, very Special Hell (as well as those who rape and molest members of the opposite gender).

But this is the easy stuff; no decent person should have any argument with the above paragraph. Now we get to the hard part, where I stick my neck out. As I argued in my previous post, you cannot defend your rights to your own expression unless you defend those of others with whom you disagree. The members of nambla, despicable though their ideas may be, *have every right to express those ideas*. For those of you who have trouble reasoning, let me try to clarify: Arguing that a particular act ought to be acceptable is a completely different thing from inciting the commission of that act. This doesn’t mean that we have to just sit there and listen and agree with the argument; we are certainly free to vilify the advocates of abhorrent ideas. And for that matter, kick their butts if you feel so strongly inclined *as long as you are willing to pay the full price of a criminal conviction for assault*. If you don’t think you should have to pay that price, please go liv

OPUS

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 3:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Opus:
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.

As for me - Yes. Information is not action. If someone tries to actually do this sort of stuff, hang them out to dry. But if you can ban this book, what happens if the majority decides to ban books about safe sex, or contraception...or how to make home brew, or reload ammunition in your basement, or grow pot in your basement, or set up a grassroots organization to protest government actions, or raise funds for third parties, etc. etc. etc. It's that old slippery slope.

Interesting idea. So what's off limits? Suppose they put out a book with pictures,addresses and other private info about kids?
What about kiddie porn? The only person who should then be prosecuted is the person who took the pics? Not the people who buy the stuff, for they aren't directly harming the child? Is that ok?
I don't buy the slippery slope arguement, we have laws banning some guns, it doesn't mean we're going to eventually ban ALL guns. We already have some information that is illegal to diseminate for various reasons, this is no different.

OPUS

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 4:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Well, how about NOT nonsense?

All it takes is a simple refusal to mark the little box next to the major parties' candidates. Unfortunately, most people are just too numb to realize they have a choice, or just don't care. I guess. I really don't understand why they'd keep going back for more.

Two strong major parties guarentees that someone will not win with 25% of the vote. I'm not for getting rid of third or fourth party candidates, they can help bring issues that are being ignored to the front. But should they gain more power we're guarantteed to end up with a 25% winner. The more fractured the vote the more likely it is for someone like David Dukes to win.
Changing the nature of the parties themselves from the inside is the only way. However, several thousand years of human history has shown there's no such thing as a politician or government that isn't corrupt.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 4:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Opus:
Changing the nature of the parties themselves from the inside is the only way. However, several thousand years of human history has shown there's no such thing as a politician or government that isn't corrupt.

That's just nonsense. It's NOT the only way. It will be the only way if we keep telling ourselves that. We have to reform the voting process first. That's where they have the stranglehold. You seem to be happy with the two major parties, but I think they're both steaming piles of dogshit. Rolling over and just accepting it is the surest way to maintain the status quo.

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

OPUS

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 4:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Opus:
Changing the nature of the parties themselves from the inside is the only way. However, several thousand years of human history has shown there's no such thing as a politician or government that isn't corrupt.

That's just nonsense. It's NOT the only way. It will be the only way if we keep telling ourselves that. We have to reform the voting process first. That's where they have the stranglehold. You seem to be happy with the two major parties, but I think they're both steaming piles of dogshit. Rolling over and just accepting it is the surest way to maintain the status quo.

So how would you change the voting process to make things better?

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 5:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Opus:
So how would you change the voting process to make things better?

I was so hoping you'd ask.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=11014

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

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