Flag Burning.

[fgfuyfyuiuy0]

Well, I don't feel like going back 2 pages to quote someone, but it was a comment about the first amendment. The term "freedom of speech" doesn't mean you can burn a flag and all is well. It means you have a right to say what's on your mind, protest, and stand against the government if it seems fit. No where does it say "One can burn the countries flag". People may say "It's the action of burning the flag that replaces words." Well, I don't think our Founding Fathers predicted flag burning, but I don't approve of people doing it.

 

 

 

 

 

Did you know it is illegal to fly another countries flag over the American flag while living in the U.S? So, if you owned a store in downtown New York and put the Canadian flag over the American Flag, it is illegal. I don't see how burning the American flag for 'fun' or for a 'protest' would be any different. If I went to the busiest place in Britain and burned the British flag, I would most likely be tackled, beaten to a pulp, and arrested. So, why should it be different with the American flag? Why would you burn our flag, but not do the same to another countries?

 

 

 

 

 

I do not approve of flag burning and I never feel sorrowful. When my grandpa died I didn't feel sad, but for some reason, when I read that you burned the American flag, my heart cringed.

[Bufoman]

Their is freedom of speech and of the press. The two both cover words- written and spoken, they do not cover acts of subversion such as burning a nations flag. The right to peacefully assemble is also covered in the first amendment, their is nothing peaceful about burning a flag as an act of subversion or protest. Protest, that's also covered in the first amendment and it is here that flag burning managed to squeeze into it. Here is a short explanation of the issue, and why it is legal in this country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_amen ... ag_burning

 

 

 

I don't like it, and believe it should not be covered under the right to protest, or any other right. The only time a flag should be burned is to properly dispose of it after it has become worn or soiled.

 

 

 

A flag is the symbol of a nation, a banner under which armies have marched, and for which soldiers have died. To burn, spit upon, or otherwise desecrate it is to make an attack upon all those who have made sacrifices for it.

 

 

 

Please do not tell me about how outlawing this would hurt the first amendment, for it has already been violated with outrageous things such as Hate Crime Legislation. We don't have freedom of speech in this country, only of acceptable speech. We don't have freedom of expression either, only if it's acceptable (putting a cross in cow crap and calling it art is acceptable, while putting a noose in a co-workers locker as a practical joke is not), or if youre a minority (if your black you can say the dreaded N word, if your white you will find yourself facing a Judge).

[Ginger_Warrior]

I will agree with you about the intolerance of intolerance. I have to say i do change my opinion there and agree certain protests shouldnt be allowed(no protection for the kkk). However to say we should just throw away freedom of expression is erroneous, we simply need to recognize that hate speech should be illegal

 

Why no protection to the KKK? I understand back when they were violent, yes, but why now?

 

 

 

That's what's confusing me. People pick and choose what they think is morally acceptable and think everything that they disagree with should be banned. That's not free speech, that's communism.

 

The lack of free speech = the seizure and totally equal redistribution of resources? You really don't know what communism is, do you?

 

 

 

I'm not suggesting completely throw away freedom of speech. But there are enough safeguards from the government which mean we have freedom of speech anyway. All I'm saying is I don't need a piece of paper to tell me my beliefs, be they as as a socialist or a redneck, can be spoken - I know I have that right so long as I don't abuse it. It's an unnecessary law, and unnecessary laws create unnecessary problems. Such as disgusting groups like the KKK using the amendment to protect their right to freedom of speech, when quite frankly, they should just be in jail for inciting racial hatred.

 

 

 

If I went to the busiest place in Britain and burned the British flag, I would most likely be tackled, beaten to a pulp, and arrested

 

And what law of ours (which you apparently are so knowledgeable in) would you be arrested under then?

[fgfuyfyuiuy0]

 

If I went to the busiest place in Britain and burned the British flag, I would most likely be tackled, beaten to a pulp, and arrested

 

And what law of ours (which you apparently are so knowledgeable in) would you be arrested under then?

 

 

 

I doubt there is any law in Britain holding me accountable for flag burning. My statement is that I am causing a scene, started a riot, and fight. It's all instigation. Plus, police would detain me to stop me from causing more of a scene and you know they would. I would be arrested.

 

 

 

I am using an example. I don't know all or any of Britain's law, but I do know human beings. I do know it would cause people to attack me and police would get involved. I would get fined or charged.

[mmmcannibalism]

I will agree with you about the intolerance of intolerance. I have to say i do change my opinion there and agree certain protests shouldnt be allowed(no protection for the kkk). However to say we should just throw away freedom of expression is erroneous, we simply need to recognize that hate speech should be illegal

 

Why no protection to the KKK? I understand back when they were violent, yes, but why now?

 

 

 

That's what's confusing me. People pick and choose what they think is morally acceptable and think everything that they disagree with should be banned. That's not free speech, that's communism.

 

 

 

actually I am putting the limit of free speech at hate speech, because while I hate to limit rights some people simply abuse them.

 

 

 

for instance anyone that wants to protest the war in Iraq saying we shouldnt be there and what not should be heard and respected; however, if they want to protest by saying our soldiers are going to burn in hell and are murderers should be stopped from such protests as they are inciting riots/panic.

 

 

 

The KKK should not be protected because what they stand for is hatred and intolerance, they arent protesting a social issue such as abortion or gay marriage, simply saying everyone that isnt white is inferior.

 

 

 

I feel odd agreeing with ginger on this though lol

[Kenshinjapan]

I will agree with you about the intolerance of intolerance. I have to say i do change my opinion there and agree certain protests shouldnt be allowed(no protection for the kkk). However to say we should just throw away freedom of expression is erroneous, we simply need to recognize that hate speech should be illegal

 

Why no protection to the KKK? I understand back when they were violent, yes, but why now?

 

 

 

That's what's confusing me. People pick and choose what they think is morally acceptable and think everything that they disagree with should be banned. That's not free speech, that's communism.

 

 

 

The KKK should not be protected because what they stand for is hatred and intolerance, they arent protesting a social issue such as abortion or gay marriage, simply saying everyone that isnt white is inferior.

 

 

 

 

They are protesting other races, it's the same thing.

 

 

 

And ginger, you know what I mean. If the government doesn't let people exercise their right just because they don't like the subject, then we're no better.

[magekillr]

Such as disgusting groups like the KKK using the amendment to protect their right to freedom of speech, when quite frankly, they should just be in jail for inciting racial hatred.

 

 

 

 

Hmmm...few things.

 

 

 

Exactly what does "inciting racial hatred" mean?

 

 

 

Why should it be codified into our legal system?

 

 

 

There are already laws against promoting violence, so I'm just trying to see where you're coming from.

[jackattack]

It might be legal but if I ever saw anyone do it they would be in the hospital. People have died for that flag.

Did they give their lives for a symbol traditionally displayed on a piece of apparently flammable cloth, or for a collection of moral, ethical and political values...?

 

 

 

I know I'd be pretty upset if some jackass assaulted someone else because of their treatment of an empty symbol rather than showing due respect for, say, the legal code I died to protect.

 

 

 

Actually people have died for the actual flag itself.

[mmmcannibalism]

magekiller--insighting racial hatred would mean causing hatred of people based on race

 

 

 

it should be legalized because anyone that promotes hatred needs to rot in a jail

 

 

 

 

 

kenshin--protesting other races? Do i even need to talk about how ignorant thats sounds, we all know you are arguing for the sake of it

 

 

 

also saying that were no better for wanting to stop hatred is the completely ignorant. Government should prevent hate speech, were no better if we start preventing people from protesting tax hikes. Intolerance of intolerance is the only intolerance to be tolerated

 

 

 

edit--Ginger I need to siggy you on that one

[Kenshinjapan]

magekiller--insighting racial hatred would mean causing hatred of people based on race

 

 

 

it should be legalized because anyone that promotes hatred needs to rot in a jail

 

 

 

 

 

kenshin--protesting other races? Do i even need to talk about how ignorant thats sounds, we all know you are arguing for the sake of it

 

 

 

also saying that were no better for wanting to stop hatred is the completely ignorant. Government should prevent hate speech, were no better if we start preventing people from protesting tax hikes. Intolerance of intolerance is the only intolerance to be tolerated

 

 

 

edit--Ginger I need to siggy you on that one

 

 

 

Arguing just for the sake of it...? If the government decides what people can complain about, then what would be the point of freedom of speech?

[mmmcannibalism]

the government shouldnt decide what we can argue about the government should say you arent allow to spew hateful rhetoric. If you have a problem with the government banning hate speech then you are no better then those that are speaking it

 

 

 

now to try to pull this on topic

 

 

 

flag burning is an extreme form of protest, it should not be illegal by itself but should be illegal when used with hate speech. If you are going to burn a flag you should have a pretty good reason not something dumb like protesting a tax increase.

[Woodcut Lvr]

the government shouldnt decide what we can argue about the government should say you arent allow to spew hateful rhetoric. If you have a problem with the government banning hate speech then you are no better then those that are speaking it

 

 

 

I don't have a problem with the government banning hate speech, but don't you think it's unfair to not give protection to the KKK? There are religions out there tha thate people from others... What you're saying is that should be banned too. And so should athiests, as they hate god. That's hate too isn't it?

 

 

 

You kinda locked yourself up by saying that hate speech and hating should be banned.

[magekillr]

magekiller--insighting racial hatred would mean causing hatred of people based on race

 

 

 

it should be legalized because anyone that promotes hatred needs to rot in a jail

 

 

 

I'm playing the Devil's Advocate here because 99.9% of the time I agree with what Ginger says, so here goes:

 

 

 

Well you said you are intolerant of intolerance to the extent that you would make illegal certain forms of hate speech. Now that suggests on some level that you are in support of protection freedom of speech because it helps society to have an open exchange of ideas, but only speech that would help this exchange should fall under this protection, and intolerant speech actively harms this exchange of ideas. Is that what you believe, more or less?

[mmmcannibalism]

the government shouldnt decide what we can argue about the government should say you arent allow to spew hateful rhetoric. If you have a problem with the government banning hate speech then you are no better then those that are speaking it

 

 

 

I don't have a problem with the government banning hate speech, but don't you think it's unfair to not give protection to the KKK? There are religions out there tha thate people from others... What you're saying is that should be banned too. And so should athiests, as they hate god. That's hate too isn't it?

 

 

 

You kinda locked yourself up by saying that hate speech and hating should be banned.

 

 

 

What makes the KKK deserve protection? Before you say they have the right to assemble consider that they are trying to prevent the pursuit of happiness by non white persons which nulls their rights. The KKK and whatever religions you are refferencing have the right to hate whoever they want and say whatever they want in their buildings of assemblege but do not have the right to disrupt the public with it. Who says that athiests hate god? I mean im sure their are some that claim they do but that means they hate something that they claim doesnt exist. If I was an atheist I woudl imagine your statement that atheists hate god is pretty offensive.

 

 

 

just to note god isnt capitalized in my writing there because it is not referencing any general or specific god just the concept of god in general

 

 

 

edit--magekiller, thats sounds about right. I woudl say I draw the line based on something such as hatred that has no legitimate base. I personally hate cold blooded murders and rapists this has a base in the fact that they have wronged other people.

[magekillr]

Well, the only problem with that is how do we determine what is beneficial discussion. Many of the great and revolutionary ideas in history have had very little support in the beginning and were often deemed harmful to society.

[Woodcut Lvr]

the government shouldnt decide what we can argue about the government should say you arent allow to spew hateful rhetoric. If you have a problem with the government banning hate speech then you are no better then those that are speaking it

 

 

 

I don't have a problem with the government banning hate speech, but don't you think it's unfair to not give protection to the KKK? There are religions out there tha thate people from others... What you're saying is that should be banned too. And so should athiests, as they hate god. That's hate too isn't it?

 

 

 

You kinda locked yourself up by saying that hate speech and hating should be banned.

 

 

 

What makes the KKK deserve protection? Before you say they have the right to assemble consider that they are trying to prevent the pursuit of happiness by non white persons which nulls their rights. The KKK and whatever religions you are refferencing have the right to hate whoever they want and say whatever they want in their buildings of assemblege but do not have the right to disrupt the public with it. Who says that athiests hate god? I mean im sure their are some that claim they do but that means they hate something that they claim doesnt exist. If I was an atheist I woudl imagine your statement that atheists hate god is pretty offensive.

 

 

 

just to note god isnt capitalized in my writing there because it is not referencing any general or specific god just the concept of god in general

 

 

 

edit--magekiller, thats sounds about right. I woudl say I draw the line based on something such as hatred that has no legitimate base. I personally hate cold blooded murders and rapists this has a base in the fact that they have wronged other people.

 

 

 

The KKK isn't pro white. Not anymore. White Christian now. That's it. They have the right to come together and have meetings in public. They have every right to HATE whomever they want. They don't have the right to go out and kill and burn and harrass those whom they don't like.

[Powman3]

There's a difference between retiring and burning the flag. While you do the same thing to them, they both symbolize different things.

 

 

 

YOU are from Australia and you burned an American Flag. I'm quite annoyed with you.

 

 

 

Did you light it for fun? For kicks and giggles? Or because you wanted to show hatred to our "ignorant" country?

 

 

 

Tell me. I'll be here all day.

 

 

 

And Woodcut's right. Unfortunately, they have the right to hate. It IS a free country (most of the time).

 

 

 

EDIT: How did you even get a hold of one? :?

[mmmcannibalism]

 

The KKK isn't pro white. Not anymore. White Christian now. That's it. They have the right to come together and have meetings in public. They have every right to HATE whomever they want. They don't have the right to go out and kill and burn and harrass those whom they don't like.

 

 

 

oh they are white christian that makes it all better I mean its okay now if they have two adjectives to describe themselves. Yes, they do have the right to hate whomever they want, by them publicaly speaking they are harrasing those whom they dont like. Now before you say people who would be offended could just avoid it they would still be suffering from harassmant because they are now being prevented from entering that area.

 

 

 

Well, the only problem with that is how do we determine what is beneficial discussion. Many of the great and revolutionary ideas in history have had very little support in the beginning and were often deemed harmful to society.

 

 

 

this is a very tricky question. I will say that it is impossible to truly answer this, the only line I can see is that anything that encourages blind hatred and anger should be banned. It would also be wise to always lean on the base of allowing speech instead of banning. If some guys want to talk about a government system that would be better then what we have now we should allow it even if it sounds ubsurb(anyone catch my reference to democracy in America here).

[Woodcut Lvr]

 

The KKK isn't pro white. Not anymore. White Christian now. That's it. They have the right to come together and have meetings in public. They have every right to HATE whomever they want. They don't have the right to go out and kill and burn and harrass those whom they don't like.

 

 

 

oh they are white christian that makes it all better I mean its okay now if they have two adjectives to describe themselves. Yes, they do have the right to hate whomever they want, by them publicaly speaking they are harrasing those whom they dont like. Now before you say people who would be offended coudl just avoid them you are now it is still harassmant because now they are preventing certain people from entering that area of the city

 

They aren't harrassing. They are having a meeting. That's not harrassment. And they aren't stopping people from entering that area, because they don't attack phyically or do they harrass those they don't like. They just hate them internally.

 

 

 

this is a very tricky question. I will say that it is impossible to truly answer this, the only line I can see is that anything that encourages blind hatred and anger should be banned. It would also be wise to always lean on the base of allowing speech instead of banning. If some guys want to talk about a government system that would be better then what we have now we should allow it even if it sounds ubsurb(anyone catch my reference to democracy in America here).

 

 

 

By the way, we're a rebublic, not a democracy.

[mmmcannibalism]

actually i did not say America was a democracy simply that we have democracy which is a government in which the people retain power

 

 

 

clearly any group with principles based on hatred having a meeting in public has intentions of harrassmant lets not play games here

[Woodcut Lvr]

actually i did not say America was a democracy simply that we have democracy which is a government in which the people retain power

 

 

 

clearly any group with principles based on hatred having a meeting in public has intentions of harrassmant lets not play games here

 

 

 

I'm not playing games. Look at it like this.

 

 

 

Disclaimer: None of the things I say are true.

 

 

 

Example one. A few friends and I get together in the park and we discuss how we dislike Mexicans. And a few mexicans come by and feel hurt from our words.

 

That's not harrassment.

 

 

 

Example two. We go to a house where a family of Mexican decent lives. We put a bag of dog crap on their porch and light it on fire. Next to it we put a letter that says "LEAVE"

 

That's harrassment.

 

 

 

There's a fine line between harrassment and hurtful words.

 

 

 

-----

 

 

 

By the way, we do not retain power. A democracy was Greece. Everything that occured was voted on by the people. That does not hold true to America.

[Kenshinjapan]

actually i did not say America was a democracy simply that we have democracy which is a government in which the people retain power

 

 

 

clearly any group with principles based on hatred having a meeting in public has intentions of harrassmant lets not play games here

 

 

 

Burning a flag doesn't have intentions of hurting others then?

 

 

 

(I love how we're finally bringing the original topic back into this :mrgreen: )

[mmmcannibalism]

you and a few friends is not a group with principles based on hatred having a meeting with intent to harass.

 

 

 

kenshin--yes burning a flag can have the intention of hurting others as I have said in explaining why it should be legal unless it is accompanied by hate speech. Someone burning a flag may have no intention other then to get people to pay attention to them. Which ironically is exactly what the thread creator did I believe

[Woodcut Lvr]

you and a few friends is not a group with principles based on hatred having a meeting with intent to harass.

 

 

 

kenshin--yes burning a flag can have the intention of hurting others as I have said in explaining why it should be legal unless it is accompanied by hate speech. Someone burning a flag may have no intention other then to get people to pay attention to them. Which ironically is exactly what the thread creator did I believe

 

 

 

Umm. I'll say it again. THE KKK DOESN'T HARRASS. It's obvious. My examples are correct though. What the KKK does isn't harrassment, it's only hurtful words.

 

So you tell me, how do they harrass? And don't say by having a meeting, that's not harrassment.

[mmmcannibalism]

for the record you do realize you are defending a hateful organization?

 

 

 

please explain to me why their meetings need to be held in public because it is blatently apparent they try to cause disruption by having meetings in such a manner

 

 

 

edit-- also by having meetings in public they are hoping to incite violence therefore placing them in violation of the law