M
MisterMike
Guest
Is this a violation of free speech? I'm curious what is may mean to some of the flag burners. Also, why DO people burn the flag? Is it a sign they dislike their country, or more the policies it makes?
Is this a violation of free speech? I'm curious what is may mean to some of the flag burners. Also, why DO people burn the flag? Is it a sign they dislike their country, or more the policies it makes?
This would surely be an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
Limiting the right of people to criticize their govt. is so anti-American that I can't believe anyone would seriously consider it. I don't want my govt. to limit my rights to express myself. I don't want to burn a flag, but I do want the principle of freedom of speech respected.
Limiting the right of people to criticize their govt. is so anti-American that I can't believe anyone would seriously consider it. I don't want my govt. to limit my rights to express myself. I don't want to burn a flag, but I do want the principle of freedom of speech respected.
what he said. I would never burn a flag unless they made it illegal. Then I would burn the flag just because of the fact that they tried to take that right from me. You should be able to critisize your country if you want.
The moment they can start limiting free speech we're screwed.
The moment they can start limiting free speech we're screwed.
Bester
<font color=blue><B>Grand UberSoke, Sith-jutsu Ryu
They started limiting that the moment they started creating those "Free Speech Zones" that somehow are always out of sight and hearing of a certain Shrub when he's in town.
Someday, I forsee this as a real paper - http://www.theonion.com/2056-06-22/index_b.php
Someday, I forsee this as a real paper - http://www.theonion.com/2056-06-22/index_b.php
Flatlander
Grandmaster
In all fairness, and as a non US citizen, I can recognize the spirit in which some Americans may support this amendment. I know that I would be pretty seriously offended were I to witness someone burning my national flag, and would likely offer some fairly blunt opinions on the matter. Having said that, the right to freedom of expression must remain a cornerstone of a democratic society, that all citizens be afforded equal rights, and have the opportunity to share their opinions. In this way, the populations of free countries will forever grow, evolve, develop and achieve.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Must be time for Congressmen to send a mailing to their constituents.
There is no chance this amendment proposal will pass in the Senate. It remains one of the two Federal Government institutions that remembers what it is to be part of a Constitutional Republic. (and the other, the Supreme Court fluctuates between understanding this, and not).
In answer to Mister Mike's questions.
- Of course it is a prohibition on free speech.
- Who knows why someone burns a flag ... it could be because the country launched an illegal or immoral war for no apparent reason ... or it could be because the are cold.
Who cares?
Some see this proposed Constitutional Amendment as something that converts the flag into mere cloth.
There is no chance this amendment proposal will pass in the Senate. It remains one of the two Federal Government institutions that remembers what it is to be part of a Constitutional Republic. (and the other, the Supreme Court fluctuates between understanding this, and not).
In answer to Mister Mike's questions.
- Of course it is a prohibition on free speech.
- Who knows why someone burns a flag ... it could be because the country launched an illegal or immoral war for no apparent reason ... or it could be because the are cold.
Who cares?
Some see this proposed Constitutional Amendment as something that converts the flag into mere cloth.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
I dunno.
Personally I dont care if people burn the Flag, however...
is the act of burning an object "free speech"?
I cant burn leaves in my neighborhood... could I if I said it was "In protest", as the leaves are a symbol of canadian tyrrany, or some such nonsense?
<shrug>
Again, I dont care if people do it, but I dont know that I would call it "free speech"
Free Expression maybe... dunno.
Personally I dont care if people burn the Flag, however...
is the act of burning an object "free speech"?
I cant burn leaves in my neighborhood... could I if I said it was "In protest", as the leaves are a symbol of canadian tyrrany, or some such nonsense?
<shrug>
Again, I dont care if people do it, but I dont know that I would call it "free speech"
Free Expression maybe... dunno.
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
I have two flags in my possession. One has 48 stars, and was retired from service the year he retired from the Marines. The other went on his coffin and was folded for my mother by two Marines in dress blues. I've posted elsewhere how much they mean to me.
If this amendment goes into effect it will minimize for me all that those flags stand for. Such an act recalls the darkest days of this country's Constitutional struggles. Let's look at an era that most of us don't learn about in school:
The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918.
Whoever, when the United States is at war...shall willfully cause or attempt to cause, or incite or attempt to incite, insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct or attempt to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment services of the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute, or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States, or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing, publication, or language spoken, urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things, product or products, necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war in which the United States may be engaged, with intent by such curtailment to cripple or hinder the United States in the prosecution of war, and whoever shall willfully advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated, and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....
--The Sedition Act of 1918.
When Eugene Debs told his audience in speech criticizing these acts as well as World War I, you need to know that you are fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder, he was sentenced to ten years under the Espionage Act.
Two publishers who criticized the war objectives in their German language newspaper were put away for two years.
200 people, mostly working class, were arrested on state and federal sedition charges in Montana alone in 1918 for (at times mildly) criticizing American involvment in World War I. One, a wine and brandy salesman, received a 7 1/2 to 20-year sentence for saying that the wartime food regulations were a joke. Still others were jailed for saying that we had no business being in the war.
450 conscientious objectors were imprisoned. One, Rose Pastor Stokes, wrote a letter to the Kansas City Star stating "no government which is for the profiteers can also be for the people, and I am for the people while the government is for the profiteers." She got ten years. Kate O'Hara made an anti-war speech. She was sentenced to five years.
Over two thousand prosecutions were brought under the Espionage Act, and more than a thousand resulted in convictions, almost all of them for expressing criticism of the war.
Bertrand Russell, whose quotation appears in my current signature, was jailed in Great Britain for violation of similar laws there in his protest of the war. Another 16,000 British Conscientious Objectors faced tribunals alongside Russell. 34 were sentenced to death (but were never executed), another 70 died from harsh prison conditions. Note that in America 17 CO's were sentenced to death. Another 142 received life sentences (but were released by 1920.)
After the war Russian immigrants were jailed for passing out leaflets protesting U.S. troops being sent to eastern Europe to fight the bolsheviks. Six Jewish anarchists were arrested for publishing criticisms of that Russian expedition. One, Jacob Schwartz, was so badly beaten by the police during his arrest that he died as a result. A woman, Mollie Steimer, was sentenced to fifteen years. Three of the men were sentenced to twenty years apiece.
During this "Red Scare" of 1919-1920, another 1,500 people were jailed. In 1919 26 states (and later a total of 33) made it illegal to fly a red flag. Five women at a camp in California for working class children were jailed for flying a red flag. One of them received a sentence of ten years.
Massachussetts repealed their "red flag" law when they discovered that it made a certain popular crimson flag illegal...that of Harvard college.
If this Amendment goes through, the flags of my father will be untouched.
However; I will buy another, and I will then burn it.
Regards,
Steve
References:
http://www.umt.edu/journalism/student_resources/class_web_sites/media_law/sedition_project/faq.html
http://www.fac.org/faclibrary/overview.aspx?id=11452
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWespionage.htm
If this amendment goes into effect it will minimize for me all that those flags stand for. Such an act recalls the darkest days of this country's Constitutional struggles. Let's look at an era that most of us don't learn about in school:
The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918.
Whoever, when the United States is at war...shall willfully cause or attempt to cause, or incite or attempt to incite, insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct or attempt to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment services of the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute, or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States, or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing, publication, or language spoken, urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things, product or products, necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war in which the United States may be engaged, with intent by such curtailment to cripple or hinder the United States in the prosecution of war, and whoever shall willfully advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated, and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....
--The Sedition Act of 1918.
When Eugene Debs told his audience in speech criticizing these acts as well as World War I, you need to know that you are fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder, he was sentenced to ten years under the Espionage Act.
Two publishers who criticized the war objectives in their German language newspaper were put away for two years.
200 people, mostly working class, were arrested on state and federal sedition charges in Montana alone in 1918 for (at times mildly) criticizing American involvment in World War I. One, a wine and brandy salesman, received a 7 1/2 to 20-year sentence for saying that the wartime food regulations were a joke. Still others were jailed for saying that we had no business being in the war.
450 conscientious objectors were imprisoned. One, Rose Pastor Stokes, wrote a letter to the Kansas City Star stating "no government which is for the profiteers can also be for the people, and I am for the people while the government is for the profiteers." She got ten years. Kate O'Hara made an anti-war speech. She was sentenced to five years.
Over two thousand prosecutions were brought under the Espionage Act, and more than a thousand resulted in convictions, almost all of them for expressing criticism of the war.
Bertrand Russell, whose quotation appears in my current signature, was jailed in Great Britain for violation of similar laws there in his protest of the war. Another 16,000 British Conscientious Objectors faced tribunals alongside Russell. 34 were sentenced to death (but were never executed), another 70 died from harsh prison conditions. Note that in America 17 CO's were sentenced to death. Another 142 received life sentences (but were released by 1920.)
After the war Russian immigrants were jailed for passing out leaflets protesting U.S. troops being sent to eastern Europe to fight the bolsheviks. Six Jewish anarchists were arrested for publishing criticisms of that Russian expedition. One, Jacob Schwartz, was so badly beaten by the police during his arrest that he died as a result. A woman, Mollie Steimer, was sentenced to fifteen years. Three of the men were sentenced to twenty years apiece.
During this "Red Scare" of 1919-1920, another 1,500 people were jailed. In 1919 26 states (and later a total of 33) made it illegal to fly a red flag. Five women at a camp in California for working class children were jailed for flying a red flag. One of them received a sentence of ten years.
Massachussetts repealed their "red flag" law when they discovered that it made a certain popular crimson flag illegal...that of Harvard college.
If this Amendment goes through, the flags of my father will be untouched.
However; I will buy another, and I will then burn it.
Regards,
Steve
References:
http://www.umt.edu/journalism/student_resources/class_web_sites/media_law/sedition_project/faq.html
http://www.fac.org/faclibrary/overview.aspx?id=11452
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWespionage.htm
Sapper6
3rd Black Belt
i don't disagree. burning the flag isn't free speech. burning your nation's flag is an expression of misguided judgment.
the flag stands for so many things, ideals, and events in this countries history. to burn the flag in protest of Operation Iraqi Freedom is entirely ignorant. to do so, you are not only showing you oppose the current actions of our government, but the past as well.
i got an idea for you pro-burning people:
take a trip to DC, walk in and take a piss on the Declaration of Independence as well. i wonder how long you'll last a free person. you think you should have this right as well?
or how about for anyone that was ever pro-slavery, take a trip to the Lincoln Monument and desecrate that as well. it's no different than burning your nation's colors.
perhaps you'd be more abliged to limit your flag-burning parties to a more urbanized environment, rallies, and such. take a trip to the heartland of America set the flag ablaze. you won't make it out of the county.
feel free, desecrate away
the flag stands for so many things, ideals, and events in this countries history. to burn the flag in protest of Operation Iraqi Freedom is entirely ignorant. to do so, you are not only showing you oppose the current actions of our government, but the past as well.
i got an idea for you pro-burning people:
take a trip to DC, walk in and take a piss on the Declaration of Independence as well. i wonder how long you'll last a free person. you think you should have this right as well?
or how about for anyone that was ever pro-slavery, take a trip to the Lincoln Monument and desecrate that as well. it's no different than burning your nation's colors.
perhaps you'd be more abliged to limit your flag-burning parties to a more urbanized environment, rallies, and such. take a trip to the heartland of America set the flag ablaze. you won't make it out of the county.
feel free, desecrate away
Well, that assumes that the govt. is always right. I could cite counterexamples...but our country freed itself from Britain because it felt Britain was in the wrong. I'm sure British flags were burned in the 1770s.Sapper6 said:
Ah, the posturing begins. I'm not pro-burning, I'm pro-choice, and you're anti-choice. You can choose whether to burn or not.
Well, that's not much of an intellectual argument. I could go to an inner city area and flash $100 bills and say much teh same--what does that show?
I live in the Midwest in the geographic center of nowhere, and I'm opposed to this restriction on people's ability to protest their governments actions.
Unlike burning leaves, this is clearly done to make a statement...the same as the difference between shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, as opposed to shouting "Bush Sucks!" in a crowded theatre.Technopunk said:
But, I believe that cross-burning has been limited successfully because it's an intimidating action...or, an intimidating form of speech? I'm not sure.
arnisador said:
Arnisador,
One of the proper ways to destroy an old used flag is burning.
What this no brings about is either no one can burn the US Flag, or only approved people can burn the Flag. If it is the only approved, then this is discrimanation, and infringement upon the right to express myself, without physically hurting others.
Now I can see if I see the flag on fire while it was drapped around someone or while they were carrying it, that it would be a crime. But to burn a US Flag is the proper way to destroy it. Also if the Government prohibits this, then I think more and more people will be thinking about the Declaration of Independance (* even though the US Supreme Court ruled it is not a biding US Legal document for rights *) and think about maybe it is time to over throw the oppressors. Once a government no longer allows for the disagreement of its' actions then it is no longer a democracy or a republic.
Just my thoughts on this subject.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
See, now... I thought I found a loophole. I figure I can wrap people i dont like in the flag and burn it because its "protected as free speech" and here you go telling me I cannot.Rich Parsons said:Now I can see if I see the flag on fire while it was drapped around someone or while they were carrying it, that it would be a crime.
Its oppression of my freedoms, man...
"But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither"
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to = remain silent."
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
Thomas Jefferson (American 3rd US President (1801-09). Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826)
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither"
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to = remain silent."
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
Thomas Jefferson (American 3rd US President (1801-09). Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826)
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
Sapper6 in bold:
i don't disagree. burning the flag isn't free speech. burning your nation's flag is an expression of misguided judgment.
Burning the flag is symbolic and represents different things to those doing the burning. An anarchist or communist might do it out of hatred for it and what it represents. Yet another might burn it as a sign that our democratic ideals as a nation have failed, and are being destroyed--as in a fire of hatred and intolerance, for example. If I burn a flag it will be for the latter reason.
the flag stands for so many things, ideals, and events in this countries history. to burn the flag in protest of Operation Iraqi Freedom is entirely ignorant. to do so, you are not only showing you oppose the current actions of our government, but the past as well.
What I show is what I intend to show...not what you perceive it to be. Your interpretation might be totally off base from what I intend to communicate.
To say that a flag burning shows opposition to past actions of the government is silly. The flag burner might have no intention of doing that, and you have no way of knowing that unless they specifically tell you what they're protesting. If they ARE showing opposition to past actions of our government by their current protest...so what? That too is their right.
In any event your paragraph above CLEARLY states that you recognize the symbolism of the flag and the symbolism inherent in burning it... the flag and its destruction communicate certain ideas. Protection of that expression comes under the First Amendment--as does artwork, graphics, the spoken word, the written word, and advertising.
take a trip to DC, walk in and take a piss on the Declaration of Independence as well. i wonder how long you'll last a free person. you think you should have this right as well?
No, as that is government property, maintained by your taxes and mine. The flag I purchase at a hardware store with MY money is not. If I print up a copy of the Declaration of Independence or purchase one in a bookstore and desecrate it, should I then go to jail? Is it my property or that of the state?
or how about for anyone that was ever pro-slavery, take a trip to the Lincoln Monument and desecrate that as well. it's no different than burning your nation's colors.
Yes, it is. See above. Vandalism is vandalism. Destroying that which is yours is not.
perhaps you'd be more abliged to limit your flag-burning parties to a more urbanized environment, rallies, and such. take a trip to the heartland of America set the flag ablaze. you won't make it out of the county.
I might just do that and see if I get lynched. Lynching is so American, don't you think? Groups of people with a mob mentality hanging, shooting, and burning (or all three together) those who they think are inferior or possess undesireable political views. In Russia they called them "pogroms," but that doesn't have the wonderful tone that "lynching" does.
Bubba and Dwayne just can't get a country good-ol'-boy inflection on "pogrom."
<Sigh>
Regards,
Steve
i don't disagree. burning the flag isn't free speech. burning your nation's flag is an expression of misguided judgment.
Burning the flag is symbolic and represents different things to those doing the burning. An anarchist or communist might do it out of hatred for it and what it represents. Yet another might burn it as a sign that our democratic ideals as a nation have failed, and are being destroyed--as in a fire of hatred and intolerance, for example. If I burn a flag it will be for the latter reason.
the flag stands for so many things, ideals, and events in this countries history. to burn the flag in protest of Operation Iraqi Freedom is entirely ignorant. to do so, you are not only showing you oppose the current actions of our government, but the past as well.
What I show is what I intend to show...not what you perceive it to be. Your interpretation might be totally off base from what I intend to communicate.
To say that a flag burning shows opposition to past actions of the government is silly. The flag burner might have no intention of doing that, and you have no way of knowing that unless they specifically tell you what they're protesting. If they ARE showing opposition to past actions of our government by their current protest...so what? That too is their right.
In any event your paragraph above CLEARLY states that you recognize the symbolism of the flag and the symbolism inherent in burning it... the flag and its destruction communicate certain ideas. Protection of that expression comes under the First Amendment--as does artwork, graphics, the spoken word, the written word, and advertising.
take a trip to DC, walk in and take a piss on the Declaration of Independence as well. i wonder how long you'll last a free person. you think you should have this right as well?
No, as that is government property, maintained by your taxes and mine. The flag I purchase at a hardware store with MY money is not. If I print up a copy of the Declaration of Independence or purchase one in a bookstore and desecrate it, should I then go to jail? Is it my property or that of the state?
or how about for anyone that was ever pro-slavery, take a trip to the Lincoln Monument and desecrate that as well. it's no different than burning your nation's colors.
Yes, it is. See above. Vandalism is vandalism. Destroying that which is yours is not.
perhaps you'd be more abliged to limit your flag-burning parties to a more urbanized environment, rallies, and such. take a trip to the heartland of America set the flag ablaze. you won't make it out of the county.
I might just do that and see if I get lynched. Lynching is so American, don't you think? Groups of people with a mob mentality hanging, shooting, and burning (or all three together) those who they think are inferior or possess undesireable political views. In Russia they called them "pogroms," but that doesn't have the wonderful tone that "lynching" does.
Bubba and Dwayne just can't get a country good-ol'-boy inflection on "pogrom."
<Sigh>
Regards,
Steve
OP
MisterMike
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #17
Is it illegal to deface money, but not the flag?
If someone wanted to make a statement, wouldn't it be bolder to burn a twenty than the flag?
I'll admit this would be a tough decision for me if I were in office because of what the flag means as well as the 1st Ammendment.
I'd probably side with voting NO.
I'm guessing that flag burning in most cases violates some city/town fire laws (no permit, public disturbance, etc.) anyways. While the law is blind, it would just take the right prosecution if anybody really cared.
If someone wanted to make a statement, wouldn't it be bolder to burn a twenty than the flag?
I'll admit this would be a tough decision for me if I were in office because of what the flag means as well as the 1st Ammendment.
I'd probably side with voting NO.
I'm guessing that flag burning in most cases violates some city/town fire laws (no permit, public disturbance, etc.) anyways. While the law is blind, it would just take the right prosecution if anybody really cared.
Ray
Master Black Belt
I think I'd rather have the right to burn a pile of leaves in my yard than a US flag.
Sapper6
3rd Black Belt
burn away man. do what you wish.
i wonder what Russian for ingorance is?
and thanks for the neg rep based upon disagreeing with you. i was only expressing my freedoms of speech, which you didn't like. :idunno:
i wonder what Russian for ingorance is?
and thanks for the neg rep based upon disagreeing with you. i was only expressing my freedoms of speech, which you didn't like. :idunno:
OP
MisterMike
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #20
Sapper6 said:
LOL don't you love that.
