Thread: Flag Burning: Freedom of Speech?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by KID

every person should be proud of the achievement's of their country

oh, no doubt that the Nazis were very proud of what they were doing and what they accomplished in those camps. I am sure you would also.

Likewise, I am sure you are proud of what your country has done in Iraq, creating a humanitarian disaster, and kiling ragheads etc...

Likewise, I am sure AQ, and the Saudis are also proud of what their "men" did on 911

A job well done in all those instances
see, everybody is proud, and that's exactly the problem.

AMERICA IS NOTHING BUT AN EVIL EMPIRE RIGHT BUTTBOY????

NEVER DONE ANY GOOD IN THIS WORLD--- ALWAYS EVIL !!!!

MAYBE SOMEDAY WE WILL CATCH UP WITH THE LIKES OF GREAT BRITAIN, RUSSIA, CHINA AND AFRICA WHEN IT COMES TO HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS !!!

NOW GO CRAWL UNDER YOUR BED AND HOLD ONTO YOUR WANKER BEFORE THE BIG BAD WOLF DECIDES TO COME AFTER YOU TOO !!!

Bold print doesn't improve anyone's writing style, KID.

Btw, you missed the point of the argument.

Seems like vandalism to me!

It would be if someone stole someone's flag and then burned it.

If one protests the policies of a certain nation's government then what better way than to burn said nation's flag?

If it's a symbol then you attack the symbol. It beats killing someone.

I do draw the line at someone taking a dump on the flag tho...

Originally Posted by KID

THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN THESE PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE LIKE SADSAK WHO WOULD BURN AND DEFECATE ON THEIR OWN COUNTRIES FLAG INSTEAD OF VOTING AND DOING THINGS TO TRY AND CHANGE WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE THE FLAWS OF THEIR COUNTRIES POLICIES !!!!!

I don't recall saying that I would burn or take a dump on a flag.

I do find it disturbing, however, that people who call themselves conservatives would (ironically) modify the Constitution to limit freedoms granted by the First Amendment.

If someone wants to burn a flag, a photo of the President, or smear feces on an image of the Capitol it won't affect my freedoms.

Those, however, who want to pass laws banning certains kinds of speech that offends them are really the bigger threat to my freedom.

^ We already have threads on most of these.

Originally Posted by KID

The funny thing is, The most diligent anti-American posters on this forum come from countries with a far worse track record of human right atrocities and war mongering that the united states !!!!

Yet it is the US flag which has been burned, trampled and worse in recent history. I wonder why that might be so - any idea, KID?

Originally Posted by KID

Say What You Want--- Thats Freedom Of Speech

Burning The Flag Is Not Speech !!!!!

Please cite some judicial precedents, if you think this is the case.

If Your So Worried About Your Rights Being Taken Away Why Don't You Worry About

Abortion--- The Right To Do What You Choose With Your Own Body !!!

Gun Control--- The Right To Own Guns In Order To Protect Your Family And Home-- ( Even Against Your Own Government If Need Be )

Smoking-- While I Agree That Smoking In Enclosed Areas Should Be Banned-- Some States Are Even Banning People From Smoking Outdoors And In Their Own Homes !!!
( Funny That The Government Has Fined Tobacco Companies And Taxed The Hell Out Of Smokers But Yet We See No Free Products To Help The Smokers Who Are Addicted To The Cigarettes !!! )

What do the above have to do with the Flag and Free Speech?

It's been questioned earlier already, what flag-burning has to do with free speech, it's clearly an action, arguably a violent, destructive one, rather than any sort of "speech".

Freedom of expression would be the common sense term.
Or does this legally come under "free speech" in the US?

I believe you're correct, Stroll. The term "freedom of expression" is used instead of speech and the First Amendment is noted. Below are some link to some USSC cases and decisions.

Introduction "Symbolic expression" is a phrase often used to describe expression that is mixed with elements of conduct. The Supreme Court has made clear in a series of cases that symbolic expression (or expressive conduct) may be protected by the First Amendment. Several of these cases have been highly controversial--perhaps none more so than Texas vs Johnson (1990) reversing the conviction of a man who expressed his strong displeasure with U. S. policy by burning an American flag.

Link: Flag Burning
Additional cases: "Flag Burning" Supreme Court Cases

Originally Posted by Milkman

I believe you're correct, Stroll. The term "freedom of expression" is used instead of speech and the First Amendment is noted. Below are some link to some USSC cases and decisions.

Introduction "Symbolic expression" is a phrase often used to describe expression that is mixed with elements of conduct. The Supreme Court has made clear in a series of cases that symbolic expression (or expressive conduct) may be protected by the First Amendment. Several of these cases have been highly controversial--perhaps none more so than Texas vs Johnson (1990) reversing the conviction of a man who expressed his strong displeasure with U. S. policy by burning an American flag.

Link: Flag Burning
Additional cases: "Flag Burning" Supreme Court Cases

Interesting that they say "may be protected by the First Amendment". That seems very unclear to me. Do they mean they would judge on a case-by-case basis or do they mean that it is protected?

From Wiki, re Flag burning under the First Amendment:-

Flag burning
The divisive issue of flag burning as a form of protest came before the Supreme Court in 1989, as it decided Texas v. Johnson. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Gregory Johnson for burning the flag by a vote of five to four. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. asserted that "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." Many in Congress vilified the decision of the Court. The House unanimously passed a resolution denouncing the Court; the Senate did the same in March 2000 when the vote fell four short of the required two-thirds majority. [1]. Congress passed a federal law barring flag burning, but the Supreme Court struck it down as well in United States v. Eichman (1990). Many attempts have been made to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to prohibit the desecration of the flag. Since 1995, the Flag Burning Amendment has consistently mustered sufficient votes to pass in the House of Representatives, but not in the Senate. In 2000, the Senate voted 63–37 in favor of the amendment, which fell four votes short of the requisite two-thirds majority. In 2006, another attempt fell one vote short.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment

The US gov't has tried several times to outlaw flag burning. It has either been defeated by the Senate, or the Judiciary.

The bottom line principle, under the First Amendment, is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds it offensive or disagreeable. I hope it remains this way- to remove this freedom is another dangerous step towards fascism.

It's not a question of whether society finds the material offensive or disagreeable but whether the government has the power to regulate expression which clearly is a form of protest against that government.


Flag burning is clearly an act of protest against the government, and, under the First Amendment the government cannot ban speech or expression (when we use the word speech it mean any form of expression, not 'speech' as in speaking) the purpose of which is to criticize the government. This is why flag burning bans will never be Constitutional without the legality of an actual amendment (very hard to pass).

Originally Posted by KID

Abortion--- The Right To Do What You Choose With Your Own Body !!!

Uh, no. There are two bodies there, not one.

Gun Control--- The Right To Own Guns In Order To Protect Your Family And Home-- ( Even Against Your Own Government If Need Be )

I don't see this happening.

Smoking-- While I Agree That Smoking In Enclosed Areas Should Be Banned-- Some States Are Even Banning People From Smoking Outdoors And In Their Own Homes !!!
( Funny That The Government Has Fined Tobacco Companies And Taxed The Hell Out Of Smokers But Yet We See No Free Products To Help The Smokers Who Are Addicted To The Cigarettes !!! )

Americans with Disability Act.

Furthermore I don't see a legitimate function of government as being one that pays for people to stop using products to which they themselves chose to use and became addicted.


plenty More Issues That You Could Be Swinging Your Hard On At **** [/QUOTE]

^ then why do they have the right to tax and sue ????

where does the money go???

wasn't the fact that to tobacco companies deliberately added nicotine to cigarettes in order to get consumers addicted one of the major foot holds the government used in order to sue the tobacco companies???

then why shouldn't the government use the money they received to help those that became addicted???

couldn't be because they want the tax money that comes along with the cigarette purchases would it???

Taxes of the sort on alcohol/tobacco are called 'sin' taxes and originally were designed to curtail consumption.

The tobacco firms settled with the government to save money in the long run (due to promises of avoiding future liability). All kinds of civil suits are settled for less money if threat of larger penalties in the future are real and substantial.

The tobacco companies are accused of spiking cigarettes to add more nicotine. Tobacco naturally has nicotine in it.

Furthermore, it was the government who originally got most people hooked on cigarettes (free ones for soldiers, etc. during the wars). At that time I doubt the science existed to know the real dangers.

Finally, nobody sticks a gun to anyone's head and forces them to start smoking. So why should the government pick up the tab? Does the government have liability for drinking problems, gambling, and other forms of addiction?

With the amount of taxes smokers pay, they should get first class treatment whenever they need any assistance from the gov.

The Economist published a study on smokers, their health and the taxes they pay that goes against what we are told.
According to them, smokers are net subdidisers of the health service compared to non smokers. The reason is a combination of the extra taxes they pay through purchasing cigarettes, and the fact that on average they die younger.

The objection here was that the states had to pay for the health care costs of smokers and that the Federal government was not reimbursing the money.

^ wouldn't the health care cost's be much less if free programs were put into place to help smokers kick their habit?????

Or would the government prefer the extra taxes and shortened life expectancy???

doesn't the government offer free methadone programs to help herion additct's???