Desecrating the American flag may be an expression of the freedom it symbolizes, but it is outside reasonable boundaries to protest in that manner. Flatly said, it is not right to sully our flag. The Supreme Court gets many things wrong, and their ruling allowing people to damage the flag with impunity is one those bad decisions.
The person who does desecrate the flag is a selfish, small individual, who in the worst way fails to consider they are also desecrating the great sacrifices countless servicemen, women and their families made in defense of our freedom and the flag that stands for it.
County, the counterpoint is that countless servicemen, women and their families made great sacrifices so that this guy has freedom. That freedom includes burning flags, saying offensive things and otherwise looking like an idiot-if one chooses to. It also gives us the freedom to describe such behavior as idiotic or unpatriotic. But what we can’t do is criminalize such expression. Thankfully this is not North Korea. We are not legally obligated to worship symbols of the state. Can you imagine what would happen to someone in North Korea that burned a flag or a picture of Kim Il Sung? Those kinds of punitive attitudes have no place in our free society.
A nation that gives legal protection to inanimate objects and symbols is also a nation likely to extend such protection to ideas such as criticism of religion (aka anti-blasphemy laws). It is a nation likely to pass ‘anti-social’ laws and further infringe on freedoms.
In short, popular speech does not require protection. Unpopular speech does.
We would cease to be a free nation if we jailed flag burners or Westboro protesters just because we don’t like them.
You do make an impassioned point, ExciteBiker. But I have to ask, were we a less free nation when our laws against desecrating the flag were enforced?
July 28, 2016 at 11:15 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
Exactly. Most of the people here are authoritarian nationalists first, and “Constitutional conservatives” second. They believe in the freedoms and free speech they want to engage in, and nothing else.
July 27, 2016 at 3:28 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
7
8
County Line, what is worse is a Secretary of State viewing a flag draped coffin of an American hero and proclaiming it was a video that caused Benghazi. That is a shameful lie, but then everything coming out of her mouth is a lie. Saying this to a grieving mother and then calling the mother a liar is equally unforgiving.
Okay, but “offended” is not the standard we use to determine if someone’s free speech rights were violated, correct?
“The U.S. Supreme Court law is very clear that you cannot charge someone with using the flag for expressive purposes, like drawing on it or burning it.”
You are entitled to YOUR opinion. Please continue to post YOUR opinion on these boards. Pleas remember to follow board rules about abusive language, personal insults, and vulgarity. Thanks in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
August 1, 2016 at 5:59 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
My OPINION is that the arguments and outlandish conspiracy theories you have embraced on this site are enough to question your mental facilities. For example, saying you would rather be scammed out of $30k than read a historical book for a nickel, and saying that you were smart enough that you might not be scammed if you paid for Trump U, when paying for the material presented is the scam.
Please also report your numerous insults, bad language, etc. as well.
July 27, 2016 at 2:35 pm
steven says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
this knucklehead got his 15 minutes of fame. Yippee. NEXT!
It may seem contradictory to my conservative stance, but I agree that idiots who wish to self-identify as such by burning a flag, or in any other way desecrating it – while enjoying the freedom to do so – should continue to be allowed to do so.
The benefit to the USA in allowing such freedom of expression is the additional public knowledge of the identity of US citizens who would not serve in the military to defend such rights, but would, as typical liberal hypocrites, continue to exercise such rights. Their stance is entirely consistent with their willing acceptance of welfare benefits WITHOUT working to earn them.
Yogi is right until the end when he characteristically veers off into the land of mental retardation. As we all know from conservatives, but not reality, no liberals ever joined the military, nor fought in any wars to preserve freedom. Specifically the Civil War, when liberals fought and defeated the conservative belief that it was okay to own other people.
Since you wish to characterize my opinion, which does not match yours, as that of a mentally retarded person, I am allowing you an opportunity to apologize. Failure to do so will result in a formal complaint to JI staff.
Ummmm, I thought Lincoln was a Republican… and I believe it was the liberals who voted to keep slaves and the Republicans all voted against keeping slaves. But, someone keeps trying to rewrite history…
He was.. but go back through history and the parties flip flopped on their ideologies. I believe in the 30’s this occurred so effectively the mindset of Lincoln was more in line with Dem views than Repub (today). This is used often in politics to confuse folks.
When you disparage veterans, just because of their views, you are a —— I served my country, —. I am not on welfare, either. I’m a better man than you’ll ever be. Go ahead and file a complaint if you want, —–
They are mad they can’t just come here and engage in hate speech without pushback anymore. There is little to no difference between them and members of Stormfront.
July 29, 2016 at 2:52 pm
Mrbob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
My only concern with the article is the statement by the ACLU lawyer Sara Rose, “The U.S. Supreme Court law is very clear that you cannot charge someone with using the flag for expressive purposes, like drawing on it or burning it.”
If you read the constitution the legislative branch make law not the judicial. Ms Rose is indicative of the problem that to many think that the court can make law.
Not entirely correct. The legislative branch makes the law, the judicial branch interprets it. In this case there is pre-existing law, specifically the constitutional protection of free speech. The judiciary interpretation of this law is that the law protecting “expression” supersedes the law limiting were you can express yourself. The judiciary exists in part to navigate when 2 laws are in conflict, as is the case here. You can disagree with their finding that drawing on or burning a flag is protected speech under the constitution, or argue that not all forms of expression are protected speech, but the Supreme court did not overstep. What the lawyer is referring to is “case law” rather than statutory law, which is what you are describing. If the supreme court’s interpretation of the law is inconsistent with the legislative intent, then the legislature’s remedy is to revise the law. They may not, however, pass a law that limits the constitution. There is a whole other process for that.
mr. it used to be the way you stated, but this liberal court is now in the law making business. Don’t believe me? Look at Obamacare and the ruling and get back to us.
Please point me to a post somewhere that shows your arguing about the Supreme Court stopping a state from counting their ballots, resulting in a president winning even though he received fewer votes.
Most Americans are offended when anyone desecrates our flag and gets away with it.
Perhaps, but for the flag to truly symbolize freedom, it’s necessary to let them get away with it.
Desecrating the American flag may be an expression of the freedom it symbolizes, but it is outside reasonable boundaries to protest in that manner. Flatly said, it is not right to sully our flag. The Supreme Court gets many things wrong, and their ruling allowing people to damage the flag with impunity is one those bad decisions.
The person who does desecrate the flag is a selfish, small individual, who in the worst way fails to consider they are also desecrating the great sacrifices countless servicemen, women and their families made in defense of our freedom and the flag that stands for it.
County, the counterpoint is that countless servicemen, women and their families made great sacrifices so that this guy has freedom. That freedom includes burning flags, saying offensive things and otherwise looking like an idiot-if one chooses to. It also gives us the freedom to describe such behavior as idiotic or unpatriotic. But what we can’t do is criminalize such expression. Thankfully this is not North Korea. We are not legally obligated to worship symbols of the state. Can you imagine what would happen to someone in North Korea that burned a flag or a picture of Kim Il Sung? Those kinds of punitive attitudes have no place in our free society.
A nation that gives legal protection to inanimate objects and symbols is also a nation likely to extend such protection to ideas such as criticism of religion (aka anti-blasphemy laws). It is a nation likely to pass ‘anti-social’ laws and further infringe on freedoms.
In short, popular speech does not require protection. Unpopular speech does.
We would cease to be a free nation if we jailed flag burners or Westboro protesters just because we don’t like them.
Amen
Bravo, ExciteBiker.
You do make an impassioned point, ExciteBiker. But I have to ask, were we a less free nation when our laws against desecrating the flag were enforced?
Exactly. Most of the people here are authoritarian nationalists first, and “Constitutional conservatives” second. They believe in the freedoms and free speech they want to engage in, and nothing else.
County Line, what is worse is a Secretary of State viewing a flag draped coffin of an American hero and proclaiming it was a video that caused Benghazi. That is a shameful lie, but then everything coming out of her mouth is a lie. Saying this to a grieving mother and then calling the mother a liar is equally unforgiving.
Okay, but “offended” is not the standard we use to determine if someone’s free speech rights were violated, correct?
“The U.S. Supreme Court law is very clear that you cannot charge someone with using the flag for expressive purposes, like drawing on it or burning it.”
No, on InsuranceJournal.com comment boards we use the term ‘BOTTED’.
No, YOU use that term and incorrectly blame me even though I have consistently and vociferously denied voting in any way (up or down) on this site.
You are entitled to YOUR opinion. Please continue to post YOUR opinion on these boards. Pleas remember to follow board rules about abusive language, personal insults, and vulgarity. Thanks in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
My OPINION is that the arguments and outlandish conspiracy theories you have embraced on this site are enough to question your mental facilities. For example, saying you would rather be scammed out of $30k than read a historical book for a nickel, and saying that you were smart enough that you might not be scammed if you paid for Trump U, when paying for the material presented is the scam.
Please also report your numerous insults, bad language, etc. as well.
this knucklehead got his 15 minutes of fame. Yippee. NEXT!
As much as I am disgusted by any desecration of our great county’s flag, you cannot be 100% for the Constitution and against this ruling, period.
It may seem contradictory to my conservative stance, but I agree that idiots who wish to self-identify as such by burning a flag, or in any other way desecrating it – while enjoying the freedom to do so – should continue to be allowed to do so.
The benefit to the USA in allowing such freedom of expression is the additional public knowledge of the identity of US citizens who would not serve in the military to defend such rights, but would, as typical liberal hypocrites, continue to exercise such rights. Their stance is entirely consistent with their willing acceptance of welfare benefits WITHOUT working to earn them.
Yogi is right until the end when he characteristically veers off into the land of mental retardation. As we all know from conservatives, but not reality, no liberals ever joined the military, nor fought in any wars to preserve freedom. Specifically the Civil War, when liberals fought and defeated the conservative belief that it was okay to own other people.
Since you wish to characterize my opinion, which does not match yours, as that of a mentally retarded person, I am allowing you an opportunity to apologize. Failure to do so will result in a formal complaint to JI staff.
Ummmm, I thought Lincoln was a Republican… and I believe it was the liberals who voted to keep slaves and the Republicans all voted against keeping slaves. But, someone keeps trying to rewrite history…
He was.. but go back through history and the parties flip flopped on their ideologies. I believe in the 30’s this occurred so effectively the mindset of Lincoln was more in line with Dem views than Repub (today). This is used often in politics to confuse folks.
When you disparage veterans, just because of their views, you are a —— I served my country, —. I am not on welfare, either. I’m a better man than you’ll ever be. Go ahead and file a complaint if you want, —–
Shirley, you are one nasty individual. You make Confused and UW look mild by comparison. Hopefull, IJ will take action on you and delete your remarks.
What’s with you and Yogi threatening to report people to the IJ Police the past few days? Trying to eliminate any differing opinions?
They are mad they can’t just come here and engage in hate speech without pushback anymore. There is little to no difference between them and members of Stormfront.
My only concern with the article is the statement by the ACLU lawyer Sara Rose, “The U.S. Supreme Court law is very clear that you cannot charge someone with using the flag for expressive purposes, like drawing on it or burning it.”
If you read the constitution the legislative branch make law not the judicial. Ms Rose is indicative of the problem that to many think that the court can make law.
Not entirely correct. The legislative branch makes the law, the judicial branch interprets it. In this case there is pre-existing law, specifically the constitutional protection of free speech. The judiciary interpretation of this law is that the law protecting “expression” supersedes the law limiting were you can express yourself. The judiciary exists in part to navigate when 2 laws are in conflict, as is the case here. You can disagree with their finding that drawing on or burning a flag is protected speech under the constitution, or argue that not all forms of expression are protected speech, but the Supreme court did not overstep. What the lawyer is referring to is “case law” rather than statutory law, which is what you are describing. If the supreme court’s interpretation of the law is inconsistent with the legislative intent, then the legislature’s remedy is to revise the law. They may not, however, pass a law that limits the constitution. There is a whole other process for that.
mr. it used to be the way you stated, but this liberal court is now in the law making business. Don’t believe me? Look at Obamacare and the ruling and get back to us.
Please point me to a post somewhere that shows your arguing about the Supreme Court stopping a state from counting their ballots, resulting in a president winning even though he received fewer votes.