Your oppinion. Funny though I don't see your law degree listed in your bio. Did I miss it? Also I didn't actually talk at all about what I 'feel' should be protected under the constitution merely that someone elses statement of 'expression' is not a word used at all in the constitution. I also didn't mention any other amendment in my post either. I merely talked about the 1st. The 9th was not in my discussion. The idea that it is a living, growing, ever changing thing is also incorrect. It's a piece of paper with words on it. last time I checked, they don't morph into something else or rearrange themselves to say something different. You either agree with it or you don't. If you don't write a new one and see how well that goes over. We'll see if you're smarter than our Founding Fathers who managed to break away from the strongest country in the world and make one that was stronger, faster. Anyway, with that said I also didn't say that it should be illegal, merely that anyone who does it is trying to make a very large statement, "they don't like America or the freedoms that they get here" Therefore don't live here. Go elsewhere and see how well you get treated. See how nice it is to not have the freedom to burn the flag. That should be fun, eh?squeeze said:
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Protect the Flag Amendment
- Thread starter A4sForever
- Start date
- Status
Cate
Pretty much invincible
It's a bit narrow to define the freedom of speech as only words said aloud using lips, tongue, teeth and vocal cords. To get completely simplistic about it, that would limit the freedoms of anyone unable to express themselves through those means. "Freedom of expression" as an interpretation of freedom of speech has been upheld by judicial precedent for years now, because it's generally accepted that the spoken or written word isn't the only way to convey an idea.
My biggest objection to the amdendment, besides the fact that it's curtailing a right that I feel is explicit in the Bill of Rights, is the same objection that people have to hate crime legislation: it's trying to criminalize thought. The idea behind hate crime legislation is that you're doing something that's already illegal, but because of the thoughts you're having while you're doing it, it's that much worse. The flag burning amendment takes it that much further because it's taking something that wasn't originally a crime and criminalizing it because of the thoughts you're having while you're doing it. In that vein, I could be properly disposing of a tattered flag using appropriate methods, but someone could just decide that, because I've spoken against some government actions in the past, I'm burning the flag as a protest. It's easy to prove whether or not you actually did something; how do you prove what you were thinking while you did it?
My biggest objection to the amdendment, besides the fact that it's curtailing a right that I feel is explicit in the Bill of Rights, is the same objection that people have to hate crime legislation: it's trying to criminalize thought. The idea behind hate crime legislation is that you're doing something that's already illegal, but because of the thoughts you're having while you're doing it, it's that much worse. The flag burning amendment takes it that much further because it's taking something that wasn't originally a crime and criminalizing it because of the thoughts you're having while you're doing it. In that vein, I could be properly disposing of a tattered flag using appropriate methods, but someone could just decide that, because I've spoken against some government actions in the past, I'm burning the flag as a protest. It's easy to prove whether or not you actually did something; how do you prove what you were thinking while you did it?
Cate said:
oh come on cate--
criminalizing thoughts has already been done-- it's called 'intent', and as you know, holds up in court.
the attitudes are completely different. you don't see the media swarming a boy scout troop that is properly, respectfully retiring an american flag. retiring the flag is a solemn, private affair.
the people who burn the flag in protest are not quitely doing this in their back yards. it is, and has always been, a very public, angry, 'f*ck whatever we don't like that America has done' spectacle. often, the purpose is to incite action-- of other citizens, Congress, SWAT, whomever. it's not a daisy chain sit-in.
Good point on the thinking thing. We can't read minds, no, but we can read actions. I don't take my flag to the court house steps to burn it because it was merely tattered and I'm disposing of it properly nor did the group of kids that burned the flag in protest Memorial Day Weekend in the town next to me do it in their back yards. They went to the court house steps for a reason, because their backyard didn't allow for anyone to see them do it.Cate said:
And I, by the way, know one of the kids who did it. His father is a Gunnery Seargent in the United States Marine Corps who just left for Iraq. He didn't accept the phone call when his son called him from jail nor offer any money to get him out on bail. His, thank God he's 18 years old, son paid a $1,000.00 fine and got 1 year probation. That's nothing, I'm sure, to be disowned by your father who will, probably, never speak to him again because, yes, he's that mad.
Funny though I don't see your law degree listed in your bio. Did I miss it?
Ohhhh, a lawyer. There are so few of them around, especially here in the US.
Did you realize that an outsized percentage of the worlds lawyers reside in the US (I have seen 50% several times)? My brother is a lawyer too and he doesn't agree with you.
Ohhhh, a lawyer. There are so few of them around, especially here in the US.
Did you realize that an outsized percentage of the worlds lawyers reside in the US (I have seen 50% several times)? My brother is a lawyer too and he doesn't agree with you.
Cate
Pretty much invincible
Oh, come on, nothin'. There's intent and then there's thought crime. Intent is the difference between intending to murder someone and them ending up dead in the process of you defending yourself. In the case of flag burning, what's the intent? To turn a valued national symbol into cinders? To p!ss people off? Neither of those things is illegal, and (done responsibly) neither hurts anyone.
People who burn the flag in protest do it in public as a broad, noisy, "fvck you" to [insert government institution here], and I don't like it. That's my flag, too, and I've got family and friends dead/willing to die for the ideals it represents. But you know what? One of those ideals is the right to tell the government to fvck itself by whatever legal means necessary.
There are plenty of reasons to stop a flag-burning without impinging on anyone's right to free expression. If the flag is burned in such a way as to create a safety hazard for onlookers, that's actionable. If a person burns it publicly without proper permits for that kind of protest, that's actionable. Outside of those situations, it falls under the umbrella of every other group that gets p!ssed off and wants to make a big ugly fuss about it in the public square. I may not like it, but I'll be damned if I'm going to try to stop it.
People who burn the flag in protest do it in public as a broad, noisy, "fvck you" to [insert government institution here], and I don't like it. That's my flag, too, and I've got family and friends dead/willing to die for the ideals it represents. But you know what? One of those ideals is the right to tell the government to fvck itself by whatever legal means necessary.
There are plenty of reasons to stop a flag-burning without impinging on anyone's right to free expression. If the flag is burned in such a way as to create a safety hazard for onlookers, that's actionable. If a person burns it publicly without proper permits for that kind of protest, that's actionable. Outside of those situations, it falls under the umbrella of every other group that gets p!ssed off and wants to make a big ugly fuss about it in the public square. I may not like it, but I'll be damned if I'm going to try to stop it.
HOORAH said:
The Amendments are not mutually exclusive. For an aspiring lawyer I would think that's fairly obvious.
HOORAH said:
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Those are Thomas Jefferson's words in a letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1810 and are found on his Memorial in DC. He was a Founding Father if my History degree serves me well.
Your argument is interesting. His is correct. I suggest you learn about the Founding Fathers before you put words in their mouths.
Flag burning stays. America is a thought, a whisper in the dark and a shout in the storm. Cloth comes and goes, our Brothers and Sisters may die for the whisper or rail against the shout, but the city still gleams from her hilltop.
I'm hungry. Let's get a taco.
Cate said:
down, girl!
i, for one, have taken con law, and additional classes on the federalist papers and the consitution, and don't agree with the amendment. i also don't agree with burning the flag, nor do i agree with flying it with the union down-- to me, those things carry the same weight of disrespect. but simply flying a flag union down, does not carry the additional pyrotechnic-idiot risk.
the purpose of burning of the flag, the intent:
1) to piss people off.
2) to feebly attempt to make a statement by pissing people off, because the voices are not loud enough, nor are the arguments strong enough, to be heard on their own merit.
3) to keep warm on a frigid night/day.
however, i have:
a) never seen or heard of a flag being incinerated, by a crowd of sneering, chanting people WITH a permit
b) have never seen a footage of a flag that has been burned according to any fire ordinance, in any city
c) have never seen a televised 'flag retirement ceremony'
Cate said:
that's the point. no one here sits quitely and sings kum by yah around a burning flag. those protests are packed with emotion, and people always get way too close. panic ensues if some moron goes up in flames; people do get hurt.
Cate
Pretty much invincible
And if people end up getting hurt, then the guy who set the flag on fire is criminally liable. But we don't tell people that they can't set bonfires because someone might get hurt, we don't tell people that they can't protest because someone might get hurt, we don't people that they can't drive or skydive or skateboard because someone might get hurt. We err on the side of freedom, and if someone uses their freedom irresponsibly, they're held accountable.
Grrrrr...snow85 said:
I have to agree with what asise and nittany03 say. I disagree with the amendment banning flag burning because it would lend percieved credability to the morons who burn flags. I don't think that we need more laws, the ones we have work just fine. There was a large anti-war rally at a university near my home and sure enough they burned a flag. The local police were pretty smart though. They arrested everyone involved with the burning and charged them with violating the law banning open burning with in the city limits and risking a catastrophe by doing the burning too close to a building. When this came to court the judge said "I don't care what you were burning. That has no bearing on the charges. I am not saying that you can't burn the flag I am saying that you can't burn anything in the open in this city and you were too close to the building" last I heard the ACLU has been pretty quiet on this one. We don't need more laws we need more creative-thinking cops!
cate--Cate said:
this whole response is not specifically aimed at you-- fyi.
those arguments are off, and you know that! (and we do tell people which kinds of protests they can be involved in.)
you, (not *you* personally), can have your boycott, your sit-in, and your freedom ride; petition away, starve yourself, and then march all you want, but there is such a thing as civil disobedience, and there does come a point in time when it is no longer protected by the constitution.
the Supreme Court case:
1989: Texas v. Johnson ruled that the government cannot punish a person for burning the American flag as part of a peaceful protest.
The court does, however, reserve the right of the government to prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence.
The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with first amendment rights.
freedom of speech gives you the the right to be a total idiot. at least you won't be (legally) tortured for it. it also gives me the right to either laugh at you, or just ignore your idiocy. however, even though i don't agree with the proposed amendment, people do NOT abide by the laws that are already in place to facilitate the act of burning a flag. your right is to peaceably assemble. if you're endangering the lives of others, even if you're too dumb to recognize that fact, there's nothing peaceable about it. (remember that concept of 'to know'-- it means 'you knew, or should have known.)
esday1
He'll dazzle you with terms like "Code Red."
Airgreg said:
Fly Navy said:
This is sort of a tangent, but that's not entirely true about Hate Crime Legislation. There's another purpose behind them. Part of the concern underlying hate crime laws is that local law enforcement in some places won't adequately enforce the existing laws in the case of crimes committed against vulnerable minorities. For example, in certain parts of the south for a pretty good chunk of time it was well known that local cops and prosecutors didn't particularly exhaust themselves chasing down lynch mobs. Take a look at some of those old pictures of lynchings where large crowds are standing around, with everyone in broad daylight and easily identifiable (or the fact that the Billy Holiday song "strange fruit" wasn't allowed on the radio for a long time because criticizing lynching was "too controversial"). As with hate crime laws, the federal anti-lynching laws punished something that was already a crime (murder). The difference was that anti-lynching laws made it into a federal crime, so the feds could step in if the Sheriff wasn't too concerned about the lynching. Congress has the authority to do this under the 14th amendment, which allows it to pass legislation enforcing the constitution. Of course, this isn't the only reason hate crime laws are proposed, and they are unconstitutional when ALL they do is prohibit certain speech. However, it's not true that criminalizing intent is the only purpose of hate crime laws.
snizo
Supply Officer
The sole fact that they are trying to pass this as an ammendment not a law is a bit disturbing. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this subject more than once:
Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering. -U.S. v Eichman ruling
...the Government may not prohibit expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. -Texas v Johnson ruling
The passing of this as an ammendment instead of a law (because it never has and never would last as a law) is being sought solely to circumvent the judicial branch's authority. If this is how we are going to pass new legislation - what was the point of establishing the whole checks and balances system in the first place?
Surely none of you can say that our founding fathers would want two government branches to override the third!
Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering. -U.S. v Eichman ruling
...the Government may not prohibit expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. -Texas v Johnson ruling
The passing of this as an ammendment instead of a law (because it never has and never would last as a law) is being sought solely to circumvent the judicial branch's authority. If this is how we are going to pass new legislation - what was the point of establishing the whole checks and balances system in the first place?
Surely none of you can say that our founding fathers would want two government branches to override the third!
snizo
Supply Officer
and in that same ruling (Texas v Johnson), the court determined that when johnson burned the flag, "no disturbance to the peace actually occurred or threatened to occur because of Johnson’s burning of the flag."
It is possible to burn the flag while not disturbing the peace - and if the anti-burning crowd turns the situation violent, they are just as much to blame...
- Status