The American Flag Should NOT Be Burned in Protest

[Yurt]

The American Flag Should NOT Be Burned in Protest


Let us really break this down and get to what is really being said/"protested" with idiots burning the American Flag.

Here is a history of our Flag (http://www.usa-flag-site.org/history.shtml).

Let us be clear up front, the flag is not a "holy" book, like the bible. However, it represents your life. By that I mean it represents your beliefs, in so far as, you live/stay in a country that believes in this flag. This flag is not individual, it represents all fifty states and all people living in those states. If you don't believe those states belong to the US, take up arms. Don't be a sissy by burning our Flag.

For those that believe in religion:

burning religious books is not good. In fact, muslims kill ..... each other.... over it. Come on you secularists "protesters" when is the last time you burned the bible in protest of these wicked right wing chrisians ruining your country because of their belief in a "book?" You don't, because you respect their book.

Secularists:

What if we burned books by darwin? Such that it ended up burning all the books? Or any of the other secular "science" books?


Sure, you will say, that we are not burning every "single" flag, you can always "print" more.

However, the truth of the matter is this:

If you did not want to burn every single flag, thus burn this country, you would NOT burn one single flag in protest. You would find another way.

[diuretic]

I'm not sure of the legal mechanics of this but since the burning of a flag (presumably all flags) is protected speech according to a Supreme Court decision, how would it be prohibited. Surely if a legislature tried to pass legislation which prohibited flag-burning it would bump up against that SupCt decision?

And anyway, why is it so desirable that a decision that enhances people's freedom of expression be restricted?

[Yurt]

I'm not sure of the legal mechanics of this but since the burning of a flag (presumably all flags) is protected speech according to a Supreme Court decision, how would it be prohibited. Surely if a legislature tried to pass legislation which prohibited flag-burning it would bump up against that SupCt decision?

And anyway, why is it so desirable that a decision that enhances people's freedom of expression be restricted?

You are absolutely right with regards to "legal mechanics" as you call it. The case law in the US is clear, flag burning is legal. But should it be? If you study USSC decisions, you will find that they have not always adhered to their own decisions. Stare decisis? Supposedly the law of the land/court/people/common but it (IMO) seems to be something that is changed with the "times."

Thus, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss the burning of the flag. And if you look at US politics and the US judicial system, you will see (though knowing you, I am sure you do) people trying to change it virtually everyday.

[diuretic]

I can understand people being upset about the burning of their nation's flag. I happen to think that burning one's own flag or that of another nation is patently offensive to most people of that nation. When I see foreigners burning a US flag and dancing around I think, "you fuckwits". But avoiding offence is not a strong enough reason - apparently - to restrict freedom of speech. I agree with that. I have been offended many times by people's attitudes towards me, but I still think that people should have the lawful right to that form of speech because to restrict it is to begin the descent in to authoritarianism.

[Yurt]

I can understand people being upset about the burning of their nation's flag. I happen to think that burning one's own flag or that of another nation is patently offensive to most people of that nation. When I see foreigners burning a US flag and dancing around I think, "you fuckwits". But avoiding offence is not a strong enough reason - apparently - to restrict freedom of speech. I agree with that. I have been offended many times by people's attitudes towards me, but I still think that people should have the lawful right to that form of speech because to restrict it is to begin the descent in to authoritarianism.

There in lies the crux. "Hate" speech is outlawed. And in fact can get you more prison time, just because it was a "hate" crime.

The question then is, who defines "offensive" speech? Apparently racial/religious anti speech is ok, well, depends on you talk to you..........

Fact is, the flag remains. Sure SCOTUS has said it is "ok" but they have also changed their mind in the past.

[manu1959]

I can understand people being upset about the burning of their nation's flag. I happen to think that burning one's own flag or that of another nation is patently offensive to most people of that nation. When I see foreigners burning a US flag and dancing around I think, "you fuckwits". But avoiding offence is not a strong enough reason - apparently - to restrict freedom of speech. I agree with that. I have been offended many times by people's attitudes towards me, but I still think that people should have the lawful right to that form of speech because to restrict it is to begin the descent in to authoritarianism.

i watched these fuck wits burn a flag on the streest of san francisco.....

try burning a koran on the streets of san fran and see what happens....

try burning an all blacks strip in new zeland....

[manu1959]

I'm not sure of the legal mechanics of this but since the burning of a flag (presumably all flags) is protected speech according to a Supreme Court decision, how would it be prohibited. Surely if a legislature tried to pass legislation which prohibited flag-burning it would bump up against that SupCt decision?

And anyway, why is it so desirable that a decision that enhances people's freedom of expression be restricted?

nope burning the us flag in america is ok....any other flag and you go to jail for a hate crime

[LiberalNation]

Hate speech should not be illegal. Neither should flag burning. They're both thought crimes that harm no one in an of themselves.

If you can burn a flag you should be able to burn a koran and so on and so forth.

[jimnyc]

Hate speech should not be illegal. Neither should flag burning. They're both thought crimes that harm no one in an of themselves.

If you can burn a flag you should be able to burn a koran and so on and so forth.

WooHoo, bring back the KKK! :poke:

[LiberalNation]

No but the KKK should have a right to make their shitty speeches and hold their rallies. That's what freedom is about. It's not freedom if it's only allowed for people you agree with or for things that are popular.

[manu1959]

Hate speech should not be illegal. Neither should flag burning. They're both thought crimes that harm no one in an of themselves.

If you can burn a flag you should be able to burn a koran and so on and so forth.

can i burn effigies of fags in the castro? hold rallies about the immorality of being gay? cuz right now that would be a hate crime....

[OCA]

can i burn effigies of fags in the castro? hold rallies about the immorality of being gay? cuz right now that would be a hate crime....

Exactly, if I yell at a couple pole smokers kissing on the street I go to the can not them.

[LiberalNation]

can i burn effigies of fags in the castro? hold rallies about the immorality of being gay? cuz right now that would be a hate crime....
Yeah you should be able to.

[Yurt]

nope burning the us flag in america is ok....any other flag and you go to jail for a hate crime

That is the truth. Let us burn a flag is crescent and star in it.

[Yurt]

Hate speech should not be illegal. Neither should flag burning. They're both thought crimes that harm no one in an of themselves.

If you can burn a flag you should be able to burn a koran and so on and so forth.

What about speech that will incite violence? Should that be legal too?

[LiberalNation]

Yes, people who commit violent acts made their own choice. It's not the person who may have talked about it's fault if they act.

Now ordering someone directly to commit a specific crime is different but saying go out an kill alll muslims or gays or blacks cuz you're a hater is not doing that.

[Yurt]

Yeah you should be able to.

why are you not openly advocating that right? if you really want free speech LN, don't you think that getting more people to agree with your speech entails actually meeting them or at a least seeing them eye to eye where they are at?

if you spit in someone's eye.....

[Yurt]

Yes, people who commit violent acts made their own choice. It's not the person who may have talked about it's fault if they act.

Now ordering someone directly to commit a specific crime is different but saying go out an kill alll muslims or gays or blacks cuz you're a hater is not doing that.

The word is:

incite

Surely you know what a vague meaning or vague symbol can do to people. You in fact relish in these quasi calls to violence by in fact provoking them yourself while wrapping yourself in this supposed freedom of speech: so long as its my speech, cloak.

You know what I am saying, don't play with me.

[nevadamedic]

Hate speech should not be illegal. Neither should flag burning. They're both thought crimes that harm no one in an of themselves.

If you can burn a flag you should be able to burn a koran and so on and so forth.

The fuck they shouldn't. Both should be illegal PERIOD.

[LiberalNation]

Yes symbol ad words can charge people into action and make them act. But like it's not my fault if Pale acts like an ass over my insightful avatar it's not the Klan leaders fault who curses and says all gays should be exterminated if jackass take his words to heart and commits a crime against a gay person. It’s the person who acted sole responsibility.

[nevadamedic]

Yes symbol ad words can charge people into action and make them act. But like it's not my fault if Pale acts like an ass over my insightful avatar it's not the Klan leaders fault who curses and says all gays should be exterminated if jackass take his words to heart and commits a crime against a gay person. It’s the person who acted sole responsibility.

Jesus do you have to start the attacks already?

[Gunny]

nope burning the us flag in america is ok....any other flag and you go to jail for a hate crime

damn ... just repped you or I'd get you for this one too. Spot on.

[manu1959]

Yes symbol ad words can charge people into action and make them act. But like it's not my fault if Pale acts like an ass over my insightful avatar it's not the Klan leaders fault who curses and says all gays should be exterminated if jackass take his words to heart and commits a crime against a gay person. It’s the person who acted sole responsibility.

your avatar is not insightfull....it is legal.....if you were really barve you would post a:

KKK avatar.....or kill all towel heads......or burn the union jack for invading iraq....

burning the american flag is for wannabe rebels.....

hell my avatar is more hateful than yours

[LiberalNation]

Well I beg to differ, I'm getting more hate for my buck then your avi ever will.

[manu1959]

Well I beg to differ, I'm getting more hate for my buck then your avi ever will.

outside the US you would be a hero.....you don't even know what mine is do you?

[LiberalNation]

looks like a crusader.

[manu1959]

looks like a crusader.

it is a templar knight looking west

[Yurt]

Well I beg to differ, I'm getting more hate for my buck then your avi ever will.

Differ at will:


The word is:

incite

Surely you know what a vague meaning or vague symbol can do to people. You in fact relish in these quasi calls to violence by in fact provoking them yourself while wrapping yourself in this supposed freedom of speech: so long as its my speech, cloak.

You know what I am saying, don't play with me.

[Yurt]

Well I beg to differ, I'm getting more hate for my buck then your avi ever will.

Are you? Or are you judging only from those who are vocal? You have no proof for those who abhore yours.

Are you going to answer the thread's premise?



If you did not want to burn every single flag, thus burn this country, you would NOT burn one single flag in protest. You would find another way.

[LiberalNation]

It's symbolism, burn the flag since you can't burn the government. Soooo....

[LiberalNation]

Differ at will:
I will.

[Black Lance]

Yes, people who commit violent acts made their own choice. It's not the person who may have talked about it's fault if they act.

Now ordering someone directly to commit a specific crime is different but saying go out an kill alll muslims or gays or blacks cuz you're a hater is not doing that.

How about an Islamic scholar with connections to Hamas who tells every Muslim who will listen to make bombs and kill the infidels? Should incitement to commit terrorism also be legal? If "no", what is the practical difference between "kill all infidels" and "kill all Muslims"?

[manu1959]

How about an Islamic scholar with connections to Hamas who tells every Muslim who will listen to make bombs and kill the infidels? Should incitement to commit terrorism also be legal? If "no", what is the practical difference between "kill all infidels" and "kill all Muslims"?

if on us soil...arrested....if on foriegn soil....that would be there issue

[manu1959]

It's symbolism, burn the flag since you can't burn the government. Soooo....

so you seem to imply that you are hoping that burning the flag will incite others to burn govt' buildings and kill govt' employees?

[Black Lance]

if on us soil...arrested....if on foriegn soil....that would be there issue

I agree. I generally favor interpreting constitutional right broadly, especially first amendment rights, but I draw the line when it comes to openly inciting people to commit violent felonies.

By the way, Manu, what is the significance of the templar facing West? Is it mocking Muslims for praying to the East, or is your templar about to sack Byzantium or something?

[actsnoblemartin]

I wouldnt mind banning flag burning, it is the ultimate dis-respect to this country.


The American Flag Should NOT Be Burned in Protest


Let us really break this down and get to what is really being said/"protested" with idiots burning the American Flag.

Here is a history of our Flag (http://www.usa-flag-site.org/history.shtml).

Let us be clear up front, the flag is not a "holy" book, like the bible. However, it represents your life. By that I mean it represents your beliefs, in so far as, you live/stay in a country that believes in this flag. This flag is not individual, it represents all fifty states and all people living in those states. If you don't believe those states belong to the US, take up arms. Don't be a sissy by burning our Flag.

For those that believe in religion:

burning religious books is not good. In fact, muslims kill ..... each other.... over it. Come on you secularists "protesters" when is the last time you burned the bible in protest of these wicked right wing chrisians ruining your country because of their belief in a "book?" You don't, because you respect their book.

Secularists:

What if we burned books by darwin? Such that it ended up burning all the books? Or any of the other secular "science" books?


Sure, you will say, that we are not burning every "single" flag, you can always "print" more.

However, the truth of the matter is this:

If you did not want to burn every single flag, thus burn this country, you would NOT burn one single flag in protest. You would find another way.

[Yurt]

It's symbolism, burn the flag since you can't burn the government. Soooo....

You're right, it is symbolism. You are symbolizing burning the government because as you say, you will get arrested if you burn government buildings or government workers. By burning, you are emphatically saying that this symbol, which represents this country, should burn, thus this country should be burn to the ground. A country is really a set of ideas that most people want to live under etc... There are other ways to get your point across that the government is operating contrary to those ideas than symbolically burning it to the ground.

You get more out of a protest placard that explains exactly what you are protesting than burning a flag. If I only saw you burning the flag, I would have no idea wtf for, I can only assume you want this country to burn.

[LiberalNation]

Government, not country is why people burn flags. Yes there are better ways to protest if your trying to get your point acrossed but it is a great emotional tool even so. You can have your cake an eat it to. Hold a rally, explain your ideas, and then burn a flag to get your supporters hyped up and piss of the "enemy".

[Hugh Lincoln]

Let 'em burn.

http://homepage.mac.com/sbooneaz/iblog/C1902904377/E20060410114519/Media/flag.jpg

http://pages.prodigy.net/mvrwc/images/Burning-Un-Flag.jpg

http://www.luposimo.org/israeli_flag_burn.jpg

[LiberalNation]

Fire is also neat. Whose flag is that Hugh. Iraq, Palestine, or another.

[hjmick]

Looks like Mexico and the U.N.

[LiberalNation]

Oh yeah, Mexico. Also Israel, white power people are so annoying. What has Israel done to you.

[Yurt]

Government, not country is why people burn flags. Yes there are better ways to protest if your trying to get your point acrossed but it is a great emotional tool even so. You can have your cake an eat it to. Hold a rally, explain your ideas, and then burn a flag to get your supporters hyped up and piss of the "enemy".

Is it not the government who runs the country? You are right that it is not only the government who makes up a coutnry, however, in this country the government is elected. Thus, the government is in a sense, the country. It is true that the citizens play a big role too, but the citizens also (for the most part) believe in that symbol, which represents the country, not just the government. And that is where I think you misunderstand the flag.

You also seem to admit that you would burn the flag to hype up supporters and "mostly" to piss off the """enemy""" You really should reevaluate what you are saying. You are calling fellow countrymen enemies, when in fact they just differ in belief from you. You are also knowlingly burning the flag to incite people. It may be a fine line whether the incitement is one to violence, but, you are knowingly doing something that largely is intended to not protest, but to PISS OFF.

The best way to ensure noncompliance with someone who opposes your view, is to PISS them off. Just try burning your monthly bill statement from X company in front of that company's headquarters to "protest" their exhorbitant fees/rates and see your response.

[Yurt]

Oh yeah, Mexico. Also Israel, white power people are so annoying. What has Israel done to you.

so now you don't support the burning of that flag....

[LiberalNation]

The best way to ensure noncompliance with someone who opposes your view, is to PISS them off.
Of course but when protesters burn th flag in anger you can bet positions are already hardened. There will be no compromise to begin with so I doubt it changes much.

I don't consider fellow country men enemies who have never harmed me and think they have a right to their beliefs but that's not most of the country and I was explaining how protesters should and do use flag burning as a tool in their fights.

[LiberalNation]

so now you don't support the burning of that flag....
People should have a right to burn it, just like they should have a right to burn the mexican flag, just as they should have the right to burn the US flag, so on and so forth.

[Yurt]

LiberalNation;100622]Of course but when protesters burn th flag in anger you can bet positions are already hardened. There will be no compromise to begin with so I doubt it changes much.

I disagree and as you said, you have no proof either, because you need to "bet on it." But at least I am glad you admit that this flag burning is done in anger and not rational protesting. LN, think about it.... ever had an argument with someone and it turned to anger? I will assume since you are human, you have. When it got to that point, did you burn something to prove your point? My hunch is no. Why? Because you knew that it would be the last straw and/or push that person over the edge, beyond the point of no return. My hunch is that you calmed the situation down to an acceptable level and then rationalized the dispute.

Am I right? Or have you actually burned something to convince the other party that your way is the "right" way?


I don't consider fellow country men enemies who have never harmed me and think they have a right to their beliefs but that's not most of the country and I was explaining how protesters should and do use flag burning as a tool in their fights.

How has anyone harmed you personally? For you say "harmed me."

[Yurt]

People should have a right to burn it, just like they should have a right to burn the mexican flag, just as they should have the right to burn the US flag, so on and so forth.

But you right away said white power when you saw the Israeli flag burning. LN, you have actually proved my point with that post and this one. By burning a flag, you have no idea why the flag is burning, you ONLY assumed why and then it made you upset and you voiced your "anger" at white supremacists. Now do you see why burning a flag is really not useful, it only incites. A placard would have been better.

Think about it.

[LiberalNation]

It is usefull and nothing wrong with inciting. I said white power because of who posted it burning.

[Yurt]

It is usefull and nothing wrong with inciting. I said white power because of who posted it burning.

What about inciting to violence?

And, you "knew" the message given because you "knew" the poster. So you have actually defeated your point, again. You need the message behind it, simply burning a flag does nothing but piss people off. Are you ok with that?


Am I right? Or have you actually burned something to convince the other party that your way is the "right" way?

Please refer to the post above, I want to know how you personally resolve disagreements.

[LiberalNation]

Can't say I burn things down to solve disagrements but then that's not what people who burn the flag are intending. They are simply exspressing their anger/frustration at the government thru the act. Which is their god given right and protected by the first as it is considered a political statment.

[LiberalNation]

simply burning a flag does nothing but piss people off. Are you ok with that?
Yes, you shouldn't not do something you believe is correct just because someone might be offended/pissed over it.

[diuretic]

can i burn effigies of fags in the castro? hold rallies about the immorality of being gay? cuz right now that would be a hate crime....

I don't think it would come under hate crime definitions but you'd need to check state statutes.

[diuretic]

What about speech that will incite violence? Should that be legal too?

No, because of the probability of it leading to violence.

[diuretic]

How about an Islamic scholar with connections to Hamas who tells every Muslim who will listen to make bombs and kill the infidels? Should incitement to commit terrorism also be legal? If "no", what is the practical difference between "kill all infidels" and "kill all Muslims"?

No, that sort of behaviour should be criminalised.

[Yurt]

Can't say I burn things down to solve disagrements but then that's not what people who burn the flag are intending. They are simply exspressing their anger/frustration at the government thru the act. Which is their god given right and protected by the first as it is considered a political statment.

It is not a god given right. It is not protected by the constitution, it is protected because some activist judges said so. Rehnquist, in his dissent, said it best:


The American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It does not represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another "idea" or "point of view" competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have. I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 States, which make criminal the public burning of the flag.

The day will come LN when congress amends the constitution to protect the flag.


Since then, Congress has considered the Flag Desecration Amendment several times. The amendment usually passes the House of Representatives, but has always been defeated in the Senate. The most recent attempt occurred when S.J.Res.12[3] failed by one vote on June 27, 2006.


source wikipedia

[diuretic]

The day will come LN when congress amends the constitution to protect the flag.


Will that be a good thing?

[Kathianne]

Will that be a good thing?

I don't think so. The flag being burned is a piece of cloth, while the ideals it represents are not so easily destroyed. Sort of like burning books.

[Yurt]

Will that be a good thing?

Yes. There are plenty of other ways to protest. It is not restricting protesting, merely protecting the symbol of this country.

[nevadamedic]

Can't say I burn things down to solve disagrements but then that's not what people who burn the flag are intending. They are simply exspressing their anger/frustration at the government thru the act. Which is their god given right and protected by the first as it is considered a political statment.

There are other ways to express anger at the Government.

[Mr. P]

I don't think so. The flag being burned is a piece of cloth, while the ideals it represents are not so easily destroyed. Sort of like burning books.

I don't think so either. Overall I oppose any amendments. The only amendment I would support at this time is one making English the official language. That would serve the entire Country in a beneficial manor. A flag amendment would only soothe some feelings IMO.

[Mr. P]

Yes. There are plenty of other ways to protest. It is not restricting protesting, merely protecting the symbol of this country.

But in amending the Constitution to protect a symbol, you are changing the very core of the freedom it stands for. No?

[Yurt]

But in amending the Constitution to protect a symbol, you are changing the very core of the freedom it stands for. No?

You can still protest. You can't incite violence though, so the freedom does have its limitations. This issue has been known to incite violence given the deep feelings people have with regards to the symbol of this country. An amendment protecting the flag would not be hindering protests, it merely is protecting the symbol of the country and diffusing a volitale issue.

And, IMO, it would be beneficial for the country. That way, you respectfully protest and not merely insult people. LN said best, flag burning is done mostly to piss off the other side. 48 out of 50 states made it illegal, 5 justices changed that. That is why an amendment is necessary.

[diuretic]

You can still protest. You can't incite violence though, so the freedom does have its limitations. This issue has been known to incite violence given the deep feelings people have with regards to the symbol of this country. An amendment protecting the flag would not be hindering protests, it merely is protecting the symbol of the country and diffusing a volitale issue.

And, IMO, it would be beneficial for the country. That way, you respectfully protest and not merely insult people. LN said best, flag burning is done mostly to piss off the other side. 48 out of 50 states made it illegal, 5 justices changed that. That is why an amendment is necessary.

It's not incitement. If I carry out an act of my own volition and someone else becomes violent because of what I'd done, that's not incitment.

Just a general observation - have you thought it all looks a bit silly though? I mean, if a flag has to be protected by law it all looks a bit ridiculous. The flag is so important that the rights of the citizens that live under it have to be curtailed? That's symbol worship. It's a form of fetishism. Not healthy at all.

There are flags and there are flags. The flag that was raised at Iwo Jima is an artifact that deserves protection because it is an artifact. But a copy of that flag which might be in someone's possession won't have the same protection other than that of any ordinary chattel. If the owner chooses to burn it then they should not be interfered with. I have a copy of the Declaration of Independence. I got it from the Archives in DC many years ago. I saw the real one. If I chose - and I won't - to burn it then that should be my business. However if someone tried to damage the original, that would be disastrous, the original artifact deserves special protection.

Now I know those comments will bring wrath upon me but never mind. They're merely thoughts. Words on a computer screen. And to the more xenophobic amongst us who will spit outrage that a non-American should comment on the topic - save your breath, it won't move me.

[Mr. P]

You can still protest. You can't incite violence though, so the freedom does have its limitations. This issue has been known to incite violence given the deep feelings people have with regards to the symbol of this country. An amendment protecting the flag would not be hindering protests, it merely is protecting the symbol of the country and diffusing a volitale issue.

And, IMO, it would be beneficial for the country. That way, you respectfully protest and not merely insult people. LN said best, flag burning is done mostly to piss off the other side. 48 out of 50 states made it illegal, 5 justices changed that. That is why an amendment is necessary.

So you would like to remove the ability to piss people off? Then say please protest under these conditions only, don't insult people. That pretty much eliminates protest don't you think? It does just what I suggest, it changes the core of the freedoms the Constitution sets forth, not just for the flag burner but for everyone. Where do folks stop imposing restrictions on others? Sign size, color, text?

No one HAS A RIGHT to NOT be offended.

[Yurt]

So you would like to remove the ability to piss people off? Then say please protest under these conditions only, don't insult people. That pretty much eliminates protest don't you think? It does just what I suggest, it changes the core of the freedoms the Constitution sets forth, not just for the flag burner but for everyone. Where do folks stop imposing restrictions on others? Sign size, color, text?

No one HAS A RIGHT to NOT be offended.

I am not talking about simply ticking people off and offended them. I am talking about inciting people to violence. I have made that quite clear. You can see reactions from posters on this boad to an image of the flag burning. They are not merely offended, they are outraged. Flag burning has incited people to violence. There have been riots over it.

Notice I do not want to stop protests, just flag burning. And is it not clear that their main reason for burning the flag is not protest, but to solely anger people. Again, that right should not be denied, however, as you know the law forbids speech that is likely to incite violence. Flag burning does.

The burden on speech is minimal compared to the benefit of not burning it.

[diuretic]

Yurt I still have to take issue with your argument about incitement.

If someone trashes a Qu'ran and a riot happens, who is at fault?

[Gaffer]

Yurt I still have to take issue with your argument about incitement.

If someone trashes a Qu'ran and a riot happens, who is at fault?

The person that incited the riot by trashing the koran.

Burning the flag is an attempt to incite violence. That is why it should be outlawed, not to suppress free speech.

[Yurt]

Yurt I still have to take issue with your argument about incitement.

If someone trashes a Qu'ran and a riot happens, who is at fault?

If they trash the quran for the purpose of incitement, there is your answer. As LN admitted, the main purpose is not to protest, it is to incite the "enemy."



I do understand the slippery slope, however, in this particular case burning the flag is symolizing the burning of the government. This could be akin to overthrowing the government which is treason under our laws. IMO, this is different than burning the quran.

[Hugh Lincoln]

Oh yeah, Mexico. Also Israel, white power people are so annoying. What has Israel done to you.

Liberals don't usually defend Israel - neocons do. Israel sucks up my tax dollars and wouldn't let me be a citizen because I'm not a Jew. I'm not against its existence --- I just hate paying for it!

[LiberalNation]

Soooooo, who said I was all liberal. My opinions are all over the political spectrum. As for paying for them, we pay other countries just about as much. Bribe money to be our allies, ect. If it wasn't Israel that money would just be wasted elsewhere on someone else.

[diuretic]

The person that incited the riot by trashing the koran.

Burning the flag is an attempt to incite violence. That is why it should be outlawed, not to suppress free speech.

No, the person who trashed the Qu'ran was carrying out an act which was offensive to some people (bear in mind the nostrum about not having a right to be offended) but it wasn't prima facie incitement. It was an inflammatory act, yes, but the rioters chose to work themselves up to a riotous pitch, they had the choice of self control but tossed it away. Incitement - at common law - isn't about inflaming your enemies so much as exciting your supporters and then launching in to unlawful behaviour.

Burning the flag isn't prima facie incitment at all, just like the Qu'ran example. If people choose to go crazy because they see a flag being burned, that's their responsibility for having no self control.

[diuretic]

If they trash the quran for the purpose of incitement, there is your answer. As LN admitted, the main purpose is not to protest, it is to incite the "enemy."

I see what's happening. I'm looking at "incitement" from the common law definition. I would, this is from my reference point, look at it as a form of disorderly behaviour if it occurred in a public place and that goes for the flag burning as well. If it happened in my jurisdiction the the trasher/burner would be locked up for disorderly behaviour in a public place and the issue of protected speech wouldn't enter into it because we don't have a constitutionally-specific provision of free speech.





I do understand the slippery slope, however, in this particular case burning the flag is symolizing the burning of the government. This could be akin to overthrowing the government which is treason under our laws. IMO, this is different than burning the quran.

I have to disagree. I would think the symbolism argument would get short shrift in a court because it's so subjective. I don't think you can argue an individual and highly subjective interpretation on an act like that. I could well argue something completely different in interpretation and it would as valid as the "burning of the government" argument.

I would think if that argument was a good one it would have been used in the constitutional cases on flag burning.

[Yurt]

I see what's happening. I'm looking at "incitement" from the common law definition. I would, this is from my reference point, look at it as a form of disorderly behaviour if it occurred in a public place and that goes for the flag burning as well. If it happened in my jurisdiction the the trasher/burner would be locked up for disorderly behaviour in a public place and the issue of protected speech wouldn't enter into it because we don't have a constitutionally-specific provision of free speech.




I have to disagree. I would think the symbolism argument would get short shrift in a court because it's so subjective. I don't think you can argue an individual and highly subjective interpretation on an act like that. I could well argue something completely different in interpretation and it would as valid as the "burning of the government" argument.

I would think if that argument was a good one it would have been used in the constitutional cases on flag burning.


can't burn draft cards. in fact the argument was a good one, 4 of the justices voted against allowing flag burning. Rehnquist put it artfully as:


The American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It does not represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another "idea" or "point of view" competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have. I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 States, which make criminal the public burning of the flag.

Rehnquist also argued that flag burning is "no essential part of any exposition of ideas" but rather "the equivalent of an inarticulate grunt or roar that, it seems fair to say, is most likely to be indulged in not to express any particular idea, but to antagonize others."

[diuretic]

Rehnquist's argument seems to me to be an acknowledgement that Americans have made the flag a fetish object. The fetish object must be protected. Of course that argument failed. The flag is just a flag after all. There are thousands and thousands of them. Why should a mass-produced item which can be purchased anywhere by anyone be given a protected status? Rehnquist has to resort to the fetish protection argument as he had nothing else. He failed of course.

As for draft cards - are they officially US Government property and therefore not the property of the possessor? While someone can go and buy a flag and burn it as it's their property, they can't burn a draft card if it's not their property.

[GW in Ohio]

Everybody agrees that the flag shouldn't be burned in protest.
We don't need a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning. If you see someone doing it, beat the crap out of him. You'll probably be applauded by any onlookers.
Flag burning doesn't happen very often. This is not a major issue. We've got more important issues to worry about.


Anyone disagree?

[Hagbard Celine]

The American Flag Should NOT Be Burned in Protest


Let us really break this down and get to what is really being said/"protested" with idiots burning the American Flag.

Here is a history of our Flag (http://www.usa-flag-site.org/history.shtml).

Let us be clear up front, the flag is not a "holy" book, like the bible. However, it represents your life. By that I mean it represents your beliefs, in so far as, you live/stay in a country that believes in this flag. This flag is not individual, it represents all fifty states and all people living in those states. If you don't believe those states belong to the US, take up arms. Don't be a sissy by burning our Flag.

For those that believe in religion:

burning religious books is not good. In fact, muslims kill ..... each other.... over it. Come on you secularists "protesters" when is the last time you burned the bible in protest of these wicked right wing chrisians ruining your country because of their belief in a "book?" You don't, because you respect their book.

Secularists:

What if we burned books by darwin? Such that it ended up burning all the books? Or any of the other secular "science" books?


Sure, you will say, that we are not burning every "single" flag, you can always "print" more.

However, the truth of the matter is this:

If you did not want to burn every single flag, thus burn this country, you would NOT burn one single flag in protest. You would find another way.

The flag is a symbol that represents the United States. Obviously, if you have respect and/or love for the United States, you take exception to it's flag being burned--but you really can't get around the fact that this is a free speech issue and as free speech, flag burning is protected under the First Amendment. That's the end of the story. No matter how much huffing and puffing and indignant stomping you do on the subject and no matter how disrespectful you think it is, you can't stop people from burning the flag because they have the freedom to do so and the right to express themselves freely.

On top of that, this is a trivial wedge issue that politicians use to polarize the people. You need to direct your attention to the important issues, which are immigration, tax reform, healthcare and military policy.

[diuretic]

Everybody agrees that the flag shouldn't be burned in protest.
We don't need a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning. If you see someone doing it, beat the crap out of him. You'll probably be applauded by any onlookers.
Flag burning doesn't happen very often. This is not a major issue. We've got more important issues to worry about.


Anyone disagree?

Yes.

[Mr. P]

Everybody agrees that the flag shouldn't be burned in protest.
We don't need a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning. If you see someone doing it, beat the crap out of him. You'll probably be applauded by any onlookers.
Flag burning doesn't happen very often. This is not a major issue. We've got more important issues to worry about.


Anyone disagree?

I agree.

[Pale Rider]

The day will come LN when congress amends the constitution to protect the flag.


Will that be a good thing?

Yes. Then the person I see burning one can forgo the trip to hospital because I put it out with their FACE.

[Pale Rider]

I don't think so. The flag being burned is a piece of cloth, while the ideals it represents are not so easily destroyed. Sort of like burning books.

I don't know what's happening with you Kathianne, but you're sounding more and more liberal all the time.

I'm very disappointed to hear you say that. There must not be any veterans in your immediate family.

[diuretic]

Yes. Then the person I see burning one can forgo the trip to hospital because I put it out with their FACE.

Right. :laugh2:

[Yurt]

Hagbard Celine;102025]The flag is a symbol that represents the United States. Obviously, if you have respect and/or love for the United States, you take exception to it's flag being burned--but you really can't get around the fact that this is a free speech issue and as free speech, flag burning is protected under the First Amendment. That's the end of the story.

Let's not be simplistic about Hagbard. That is not the end of the story, if it were, the story would not still be playing itself out.


No matter how much huffing and puffing and indignant stomping you do on the subject and no matter how disrespectful you think it is, you can't stop people from burning the flag because they have the freedom to do so and the right to express themselves freely.

So it is huffing and puffing when someone disputes something that you disagree with? Interesting. I thought you more detached. But I am learning more and more that you are not, which is fine, so long as you recognize your own biases.

Tell exactly where this freedom comes. Exactly. And we are solely talking about the freedom to burn the flag. Not about speech in general, but about where exactly the "freedom" to burn the flag as speech is located in our constitution, codes and laws.




On top of that, this is a trivial wedge issue that politicians use to polarize the people. You need to direct your attention to the important issues, which are immigration, tax reform, healthcare and military policy.

Hagbard, if you had followed this thread you would have seen LN admit that flag burning is primarily to piss the ENEMY off. You would also have seen how the burning of the Israeli flag drew such a strong response. Truth is, the response was drawn because the poster already knew the background. If the flag had been burned alone, no one would have been able to decipher the message, the flag being burned MUST necessarily have a message besides it to be understood.

IMO, it is not speech because of this. For if you were to walk into a room with 100 people, you know none of them and have no idea of their political persuasion, and you say them burning the flag (AND you have no history of why burning the flag matters) you would have no clue what their "speech" is.

And Hagbard, it is important. They are effectively advocating, as I have shown in this thread, the burning down of the government. Symbolism only goes so far.... There is always a bit of truth in humor.... Surely you have heard that one.

Thanks for the post btw.

[Gunny]

Yes, you shouldn't not do something you believe is correct just because someone might be offended/pissed over it.

Good point. That's why when I see someone burning a flag I'm stomping a mudhole in his ass, and I'll take any of his pussy friends down too.

No reason at ALL not to do what is right.

[LiberalNation]

Hey as long as you're prepared to go to jail for it or get your ass kicked, have at it.

[diuretic]

Tell exactly where this freedom comes. Exactly. And we are solely talking about the freedom to burn the flag. Not about speech in general, but about where exactly the "freedom" to burn the flag as speech is located in our constitution, codes and laws.

I know I'm not Hagbard (too old for a start :laugh2:) but that's an intriguing question. One thing I've learn from discussions on forums is that the Constitution of the US is founded on natural law theory. And as I understand it, natural law theory holds that there are certain rights that shouldn't (normative statement there) be unreasonably restricted by government. The First Amendment, the first clause in the Bill of Rights, recognises that. It doesn't grant freedom of speech, it simply accepts it as a given.

[Pale Rider]

I know I'm not Hagbard (too old for a start :laugh2:) but that's an intriguing question. One thing I've learn from discussions on forums is that the Constitution of the US is founded on natural law theory. And as I understand it, natural law theory holds that there are certain rights that shouldn't (normative statement there) be unreasonably restricted by government. The First Amendment, the first clause in the Bill of Rights, recognises that. It doesn't grant freedom of speech, it simply accepts it as a given.

I'm curious... why is it you are so interested in America, our law, and what we do here? Why aren't you interested in what goes on in Australia instead?

[Pale Rider]

Right. :laugh2:

Your doubt is your weakness.

[diuretic]

I'm curious... why is it you are so interested in America, our law, and what we do here? Why aren't you interested in what goes on in Australia instead?

That doesn't work Pale, you've used it a few times now but it doesn't work. Try something else. :laugh2:

[diuretic]

Your doubt is your weakness.

If a man begins with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties - Francis Bacon. I read that when I first read his "Advancement of Learning" and it always struck me as being accurate.