• 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

Would you support a Congressional ban on the desecration of the U.S. flag?

  • YES

    Votes: 25 40.3%

  • NO

    Votes: 37 59.7%

  • I don't know ... I participate in polls but strangely have no opinion

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    62
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cate

Cate

Pretty much invincible
snow85 - Hey, no hard feelings anywhere; a lively and well-informed debate is way more fun than anything I'm supposed to be doing today (O the degredation of today's mainstream media...).

And I kind of got the idea that you oppose the amendment in question by your, y'know, vehement opposition to the amendment in question. As someone who must always be right, however, I insist - and will continue to insist until my medication kicks in - that flag burning is protected under the First Amendment for both free expression and free assembly.

For the record, Texas v. Johnson didn't rule that speech/expression may be prohibited if it might incite violence. The ruling actually said that speech may not be prohibited on that basis, but that the government must look at the circumstances surrounding such actions with the interest of preventing "imminent lawless action." The court found that laws against breaching the peace were sufficient to punish Johnson for his actions without bringing flag desecration into it, and that his actions were protected by the First Amendment. You can't punish someone for burning the flag, but you can punish them if things get out of hand, so why single out flag burning as an actionable offense when so many other activities can cause just as much peace-breaching?

Your move now, Con Law. :)
 
A4sForever

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
eddiemac0 said:
Why is it that anytime somebody says anything on this forum, it has to be validated, certified, and authorized by some kind of college education?
Click to expand...

sea lawyer: n : an argumentative and contentious seaman..... (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)

Because the Navy, by its very nature, is full of "sea lawyers"... ;)
 
nittany03

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Just to bring another source into this (and I'm ecstatic things have stayed this civil this long . . .)

"Long experience has taught us that it is dangerous in the interest of truth to suppress opinions and ideas; it has further taught us that it is foolish to imagine that we can do so. It is far easier to meet an evil in the open and defeat it in fair combat in people's minds, than to drive it underground and have no hold on it or proper approach to it. Evil flourishes far more in the shadows than in the light of day."
--Jawaharlal Nehru
 
squeeze

squeeze

Retired Harrier Dude
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
the simple fact that I pointed out that you don't have the slightest understanding of SCOTUS precedent does not require me to have a JD, merely a knowledge of constitutional law and be informed about this nations history. the fact that you show neither points to your ignorance. QED.
 
Steve Wilkins

Steve Wilkins

Teaching pigs to dance, one pig at a time.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
snow85 said:
criminalizing thoughts has already been done-- it's called 'intent', and as you know, holds up in court.
Click to expand...
You're thinking of the overall concept of mens rea which is simply the state of one's mind at the time a crime was committed. Typically, this must be proved by the prosecution as part of his case, but not always.

However, "intent" as defined by the context you place it in -- that of thoughts -- is not a criminal act. You're free to think whatever you want, till you take some form of action toward those "thoughts."
 
S

snow85

Come on, the FBI would have given him twins!
Steve Wilkins said:
You're thinking of the overall concept of mens rea which is simply the state of one's mind at the time a crime was committed. Typically, this must be proved by the prosecution as part of his case, but not always.

However, "intent" as defined by the context you place it in -- that of thoughts -- is not a criminal act. You're free to think whatever you want, till you take some form of action toward those "thoughts."
Click to expand...

yes, true. however, where do you draw the line? if the American flag-burning riotous factions in other countries were doing that here, in the United States, would that qualify as intent?

burning our flag to piss people off is one thing. buring our flag in hopes that the 'rally' will incite something 'greater'-- different all together.

cate--

don't have the time, at the moment, but have not forgotten. will address your post sometime this weekend.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top