Burning the flag.

[one_raven]

Originally posted by okinrus
Burning a flag is so completely insulting to those that fought for this country that it should be banned.

And the people that revolted against England to form the US?
Were they wrong?

The whole point of free speech and freedom of protest in the government system we have (and you are so patriotic about) is not only the right, but the responsibility to speak and act out against the government when you feel it is deserved and necessary.

People did not fight for the flag.
The fought for the ideals of this country.

One of the most important and most precious ideals is freedom of expression.

If people are not allowed to express themselves and their discontent with teh current regime, then all those people that you are praising died in vain.
Helluva way to honor their memory and their efforts!

 

[Porfiry]

if i ever saw someone burn a flag, any flag (except certain hostile nations' flags), i'd introduce them to mr. baseball bat multiple times.

Is that your standard response when encountered with someone whose opinions differ from yours?

 

[okinrus]

And the people that revolted against England to form the US?
Were they wrong?

Looking at the evidence, they may have been wrong to revolt and cause all that bloodshed.

The whole point of free speech and freedom of protest in the government system we have (and you are so patriotic about) is not only the right, but the responsibility to speak and act out against the government when you feel it is deserved and necessary.

What exactly does flag burning serve? Nothing, it says nothing. You do not have the freedom of expression but of speech. If anything, it alienates the country.The goverment can ban something that it deeems unsafe. Ciggaret adds, or smoking in public places are banned because smoking is unsafe. Burning the flag publically is unsafe because it could start a fire. It is also likely that vets or others might be so offended that they would act rashly starting fights. Flag burning would cause more damage than second hand smoke.

 

[one_raven]

Originally posted by okinrus
Looking at the evidence, they may have been wrong to revolt and cause all that bloodshed.

But you consider yourself a patriot?
Please explain.

Originally posted by okinrus
What exactly does flag burning serve? Nothing, it says nothing.

That is your opinion.
If I think your posts on the religion forum are pointelss and useless should you be cencored?

Originally posted by okinrus
You do not have the freedom of expression but of speech. If anything, it alienates the country.The goverment can ban something that it deeems unsafe. Ciggaret adds, or smoking in public places are banned because smoking is unsafe. Burning the flag publically is unsafe because it could start a fire.

Yeah, that's reasonable.
I am sure that us why you are against it.
Why not condone extreme violence for people that burn logs in their fireplaces?
Please, if you can't debate the merits of your arguments on what you truly believe, don't bother with foolish statements trying to make a purposeless point.

Originally posted by okinrus
It is also likely that vets or others might be so offended that they would act rashly starting fights.

The same could be said for freedom of speech, can't it?

 

[phlogistician]

Originally posted by okinrus
Looking at the evidence, they may have been wrong to revolt and cause all that bloodshed.


Burning the flag publically is unsafe because it could start a fire.

Burning 'the' flag is illegal, but burning 'a' flag isn't. I bet if you set a French flag alight recently you'd have got cheered on in some redneck quarters. Laws banning flag burning are limiting your freedoms. Oddly, the French have recently passed a similar law!

It's not about safety, it's pure nonsense.

 

[okinrus]

But you consider yourself a patriot?
Please explain.

I don't consider myself a patriot because I have done nothing to deserve that title. The values of the US goverement were formed after the war. You probably remember that George Washington could have become King if he wanted to.

That is your opinion.
If I think your posts on the religion forum are pointelss and useless should you be cencored?

No, there's other reasons for not cencoring me. I really do not have the right under free speach to communicate here though. It's a private message board and so they can decide to ban me or not.

The same could be said for freedom of speech, can't it?

Most of the time, if there a rational reason for disliking a war or something, then expressing this in writing does not make people angry towards you.

Burning 'the' flag is illegal, but burning 'a' flag isn't. I bet if you set a French flag alight recently you'd have got cheered on in some redneck quarters. Laws banning flag burning are limiting your freedoms. Oddly, the French have recently passed a similar law!
It's not about safety, it's pure nonsense.

If it's not peaceful protest, you do not have the right.
"1 amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people <i>peaceably</i> to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. " So if something is decided to be unsafe protest, the goverment can ban it.

 

[fadingCaptain]

Anyone who advocates violence because of a difference in idealogy should be shot.

Seriously though, wanting to beat someone up because they burn a piece of cloth is deranged.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
not everybody can write

A point which is beautifully illustrated by your own posts.

 

[Ghassan Kanafani]

Mystech : A point which is beautifully illustrated by your own posts.

Thats cheap and stinking full of Anglo-centrism ...... again you .

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by okinrus
Looking at the evidence, they may have been wrong to revolt and cause all that bloodshed.

Haha I honestly didn't know that we still had loyalists living in the States, what a kick! So you are a patriot who still thinks that the United States should be colonies of Britton, and not a sovereign nation?

Originally posted by okinrus
What exactly does flag burning serve? Nothing, it says nothing.

If this is really how you feel, then why does it upset you? Burning the flag sends a clear statement that you are against current actions or policies by the government. It's very much a part of free speech, and outlawing certain political view points is not the way our government works. Maybe that sort of thing used to go over well in Iraq, but aspiring to be more like Saddam's regime is not something that I feel is right for America.

Originally posted by okinrus
You do not have the freedom of expression but of speech.

Thank you for this observation, Capitan semantics. Do you really think that the idea the founding fathers had in mind is that you have the right to SAY anything, but all other forms of expression are completely subject to regulation? The Idea is completely absurd.

Originally posted by okinrus
The goverment can ban something that it deeems unsafe. Ciggaret adds, or smoking in public places are banned because smoking is unsafe. Burning the flag publically is unsafe because it could start a fire. It is also likely that vets or others might be so offended that they would act rashly starting fights. Flag burning would cause more damage than second hand smoke.

Haha, well ok then, fire chief. It's a public safety hazard you say? That's the grounds that you choose to base your argument on? Why are you wasting your time with this ridiculous straw man argument? We all know the issues is that you are against the message that burning the flag sends, NOT the fact that it is a safety hazard. Also, how many injuries or large scale fires have flag burnings caused in the past? Not such a danger is it? Thanks for throwing this argument in I had a good laugh while reading it. Do try to stay on track, and argue the points that you actually believe in, not completely absurd straw man arguments.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Mystech : A point which is beautifully illustrated by your own posts.

Thats cheap and stinking full of Anglo-centrism ...... again you .

Honestly, now back up this claim. What do you mean by Anglo-centrism? How have my posts shown any such bias? As far as I know I havn't even been posting a damn thing about race lately.

Stop the slander!

 

[SpyMoose]

hehe, isnt it obvious mystech? Its anglo-centric because you are a white person, never mind that you arnt of anglo-saxon decent or any of that, you are white and hence every word you utter oppresses some poor innocent islamic person somewhere whos modest and simple goal is to blow up the west... now is that so wrong?

 

[okinrus]

Haha I honestly didn't know that we still had loyalists living in the States, what a kick! So you are a patriot who still thinks that the United States should be colonies of Britton, and not a sovereign nation?

No, but I don't think that revolt is always the right answer. Canada also got their independance peacefully. Many reasons such as exorbiant taxes do not work. Also I did not say that I'm a patriot because that implies that I served or actually did something for the US.

Thank you for this observation, Capitan semantics. Do you really think that the idea the founding fathers had in mind is that you have the right to SAY anything, but all other forms of expression are completely subject to regulation? The Idea is completely absurd.

There are limits to your free speech anyways. A common example is that it is unlawful to yell "fire" in a movie theater. So unless if you can make the claim that burning the flag is absolutly necessary way to spread a political ideology, then the goverment can ban it, while still being constitutional.

Haha, well ok then, fire chief. It's a public safety hazard you say? That's the grounds that you choose to base your argument on?

It's obvious that it will cause fist fights, assualts etc. People who have served their country, love their flag almost as much as the country. So because these people have died and served for our country, I think that we owe them something.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by okinrus
No, but I don't think that revolt is always the right answer. Canada also got their independance peacefully. Many reasons such as exorbiant taxes do not work. Also I did not say that I'm a patriot because that implies that I served or actually did something for the US.

Yet, at the same time the british can shut down the Canadian government (Or Australian government, which is in a simmilar situation) if they so choose, It's a vestigal power that is unlikely to ever be used, but I find it to be a much better situation if our own nation is not subserviant to some little island in Europe.

Originally posted by okinrus
There are limits to your free speech anyways. A common example is that it is unlawful to yell "fire" in a movie theater. So unless if you can make the claim that burning the flag is absolutly necessary way to spread a political ideology, then the goverment can ban it, while still being constitutional.

No, you've got it all backwards. Our rights are not forfeit until proven necessary, we are instead entitled to them until they are proven to be harmful. We don't have to ask permission to take an action which harms no one.

Originally posted by okinrus
It's obvious that it will cause fist fights, assualts etc. People who have served their country, love their flag almost as much as the country. So because these people have died and served for our country, I think that we owe them something.

Well it's not obvious that this is going to cause fights or assaults, and even if that were the case then fistfights and assaults should be outlawed not flag burning. Are you really prepared to take the stance that holding a very strong view, and expressing that view, even if other people don't like it and will try to hurt you for it should be illegal? Are you in favor of calling in the thought police?

 

[Repo Man]

Originally posted by okinrus

There are limits to your free speech anyways. A common example is that it is unlawful to yell "fire" in a movie theater. So unless if you can make the claim that burning the flag is absolutly necessary way to spread a political ideology, then the goverment can ban it, while still being constitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees, which is why any effort to pass such a law needs a constitutional amendment first.

You would protect the symbol of freedom by diminishing the freedom it represents?

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by okinrus
Burning a flag is so completely insulting to those that fought for this country that it should be banned. It's disgraceful.

So you think it's perfectly reasonable to put stock in a freakin symbol? It's a goddamn LOGO man. WTF is wrong with you?

Originally posted by okinrus

And those who burn the flag should expect to be in a hospital.

Especially if people adopt the shallow bullshit you're promoting.

Originally posted by okinrus

Is it against free speech? No, whatever is said by burning the flag could more easily said by pen.

Honestly, how are you hurt by flag burning? It is YOUR problem if you get offended by other people doing whatever stupid shit unless they're forcing it on you.

 

[okinrus]

So you think it's perfectly reasonable to put stock in a freakin symbol? It's a goddamn LOGO man. WTF is wrong with you?

No, not at all. I respect the flag, but I also know that others who have fought in wars and seen their buddies die should not be disrespected in this way. The point of my argument is that it does not hurt me, but those who have fought in our wars.

Burning a flag is not peaceful protest. Doesn't the goverment get to decide what is peaceful or not?

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees, which is why any effort to pass such a law needs a constitutional amendment first.

You would protect the symbol of freedom by diminishing the freedom it represents?

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you have the right to slander someone? Or to make verbal threats?

 

[Repo Man]

What I mean is that in Texas Vs Johnson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that burning the American Flag is constitutionally protected speech.
Read about it here.

To make a law banning burning the flag is unconstitutional. The only way around this is with a constitutional amendment, which is not easily done.

Besides, how ridiculous could this get. Would burning a paper plate with an image of the flag on it be unlawful?
And as I said before, no one complains when it is done to retire flags. Only when it is done in anger.
I'm sure most of the people who are in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning don't care much for the First Amendment in general.

 

[one_raven]

Originally posted by Repo Man
I'm sure most of the people who are in favor of a constitutional mendment to ban flag burning don't care much for the First Amendment in general.

I would be willing to bet that not only DO they care about teh first ammendment, but they vehemently defend peoples' rights to exersize it.

When it benefits them, that is.

 

[SwedishFish]

if burning the flag was banned, i'd have no more reason to salute it

if no symbol for america was ever created, those men and women who died would still have existed. they don't go away by the burning of the flag. they belong in memory, which has nothing to do with an identification pattern.