Is flag burning a hate crime or protected speech?

[petro]

Well SCOTUS has deemed that KKK marches and cross burnings to be constitutionally protected under the 1st Amendment. We all know that the cross burnings specifically are meant to incite fear and intimidation among members of the Black community but hey, SCOTUS says that's a-okay.

My post refers to any group that engages in sociopathic behavior.
The left is very guilty of it, and of intimidation tactics, which are far more recent than a dozen dudes wearing white hoods.

 

[GLASNOST]

The burning of the pride flag is intended to threaten and intimidate a group of people who are members of the protected classes as identified by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its amendments.

What about giving someone the finger? Are there any protected classes who would be threatened or just snow flakes who feel threatened?

The constitutional protections outlined in the Bill of Rights applies to all of "the people of the United States", for the most part, it doesn't have anything to do with protected classes.

I don't understand your explanation. Let me give you two examples of "threatening" or "feeling threatened" and tell me your thoughts about them:

1). Can anyone give "the finger" to anyone?
2). Can anyone use the "n" word and brandish it against anyone?

 

[GLASNOST]

View attachment 1132669

It's only a flag and to be honest it's much more attractive than the thirteen stripes and 50 stars. This flag's a beauty!

 

[j-mac]

I don't understand your explanation. Let me give you two examples of "threatening" or "feeling threatened" and tell me your thoughts about them:

1). Can anyone give "the finger" to anyone?
2). Can anyone use the "n" word and brandish it against anyone?

The answer to both of those is yes. They are protected speech under the 1st amendment. Burning a flag is also protected speech.

This is what makes America great, is that you can use offensive speech to others, and it isn't against the law.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

4 could be charged with hate crimes for destroying LGBTQ+ pride flags, Atlanta police say

Atlanta police say three men and a juvenile could face hate crime charges for pulling down LGBTQ+ pride flags and cutting them up.

apnews.com

ATLANTA (AP) — Atlanta police said Tuesday that three men and a juvenile could face hate crimes charges after they pulled down LGBTQ+ pride flags and cut them up at an intersection known as the center of the city’s LGBTQ+ community.

Police say they got calls at 1:40 a.m. Tuesday morning that six males were causing a disturbance near the corner of Piedmont Avenue and 10th Street, an intersection in the city’s Midtown neighborhood that is painted with rainbow crosswalks to honor its importance in Atlanta’s LGBTQ+ community.

The men coordinated their plan and drove to Atlanta from their locations northwest of the city, police said. Officers are still looking for two of the six people who they believe took part.

Investigators initially told news outlets that the men had pulled down flags outside Blake’s on the Park, a bar near the intersection, cutting them up with a knife and taking videos of what they were doing. The males fled from police on motorized scooters, investigators said, with officers catching and arresting four of them.

Comment:
Burning the pride flag is a hate crime.
So why not the American flag?

If they bought the flags themselves then they shouldn't be charged, however being that it was someone else's flag they should be charged under destruction of private or public property.

Hate crime charges are stupid and suggests a protected class of people.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I don't understand your explanation. Let me give you two examples of "threatening" or "feeling threatened" and tell me your thoughts about them:

1). Can anyone give "the finger" to anyone?
2). Can anyone use the "n" word and brandish it against anyone?

First you have to distinguish who the parties are - the Bill of Rights is a list of instructions to the government (federal) which it "shall not do" to "the people of the United States".

So under the 1st Amendment, the entity being prohibited is the federal government via Congress from making any laws which:

"[Congress shall make no law respecting an] 1) establishment of religion, or 1a) prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 2) abridging the freedom of speech, or 2a) of the press; or 3) the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to 3a) petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

1. A person giving the 'F'you' finger to another is not a violation of the first amendment because the 1st amendment prohibits the government from encroaching upon this freedom of expression not two citizens. And there is a case if I can recall correctly where a guy was wearing an F'You t-shirt and it was found to be constitutionally protected as freedom of speech or expression. Actually it's just the use of F__k, in this case it was the draft, in another it was the police:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_students/resources/on-demand/quimbee-cohen-v-california/

2. As an African American I personally think that a person using the N word against a Black person should fall under the "fighting words" doctrine because it can and does involve an immediate breach of peace. If you've never been on the receiving of it then in all probability you have never experienced or could even understand how this could invoke a visceral reaction, but it both can and does. However lawfully, I don't think in and of itself it's protected unless it's being used in one of a handful of circumstances - like in an employment situation, or housing, public accommodations, etc.

 

[GLASNOST]

I don't understand your explanation. Let me give you two examples of "threatening" or "feeling threatened" and tell me your thoughts about them:

1). Can anyone give "the finger" to anyone?
2). Can anyone use the "n" word and brandish it against anyone?

First you have to distinguish who the parties are .

Not me - you. It was my question.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Try saying it...as written.

Thank you for your service Admiral !

It doesn't work that way. Nice try!

It was my honor!

 

[GLASNOST]

As an African American I personally think that a person using the N word against a Black person should fall under the "fighting words" doctrine because it can and does involve an immediate breach of peace. If you've never been on the receiving of it then in all probability you have never experienced or could even understand how this could invoke a visceral reaction, but it both can and does. c.

This is one of the most racist things I have ever heard anyone say and I disagree with you so strongly that I am not willing to even discuss it with you.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Not me - you. It was my question.

I already did. Did you understand it?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

This is one of the most racist things I have ever heard anyone say and I disagree with you so strongly that I am not willing to even discuss it with you.

You asked a legal question. I gave you a legal answer, supported with precedent. If you’re more invested in emotional denial than actual discussion, that’s on you—not me.

And when I refer to a “visceral reaction” I mean the kind of reaction that hijacks your body before your brain can catch up. It's not a policy debate. It's not a think piece. It’s what happens when someone suddenly drops a weaponized word in your direction and your whole system—mind, heart, gut—has to respond all at once.

This is why “fighting words” isn’t a metaphor. It’s a legal term based on real-world human behavior.

 

[blackhawk]

Burn a blm or pride flag, Democrats will demand hate crime charge. Burn a Mexican flag and you’re a racist. Burn an American flag and you’re a hero to leftists.

Bingo it depends on the flag being burned.

 

[Rigby5]

Well, Mexico is a corrupt shithole full of criminals.

That is true, but is because we kept invading and destroying any honest government.
We are the ones who deliberately corrupted Mexico and kept it that way.

 

[Rigby5]

Burn a blm or pride flag, Democrats will demand hate crime charge. Burn a Mexican flag and you’re a racist. Burn an American flag and you’re a hero to leftists.

BLM, pride, or Mexican flag refers to singular groups of people.
Only the US flag does not refer to any group of people, but instead refers to the government, which often corrupt.

When we illegally attacked Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. it was not a particular race or culture that was guilty.
It was the government and their propaganda of lies that was guilty.

 

[Soupnazi630]

BLM, pride, or Mexican flag refers to singular groups of people.
Only the US flag does not refer to any group of people, but instead refers to the government, which often corrupt.

When we illegally attacked Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. it was not a particular race or culture that was guilty.
It was the government and their propaganda of lies that was guilty.

We went to war LEGALLY in Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan etc

 

[Soupnazi630]

That is true, but is because we kept invading and destroying any honest government.
We are the ones who deliberately corrupted Mexico and kept it that way.

Wrong

They ( mexico ) did that to themselves

 

[Rigby5]

If they bought the flags themselves then they shouldn't be charged, however being that it was someone else's flag they should be charged under destruction of private or public property.

Hate crime charges are stupid and suggests a protected class of people.

Hate crimes can be very harmful and illegal.
But they are not expression of hate.
Hate can be deserved.
What hate crimes are about are when some uses slander or libel in order to generate undeserved hate, that will result in others doing actual harm to innocents.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Hate crimes can be very harmful and illegal.
But they are not expression of hate.
Hate can be deserved.
What hate crimes are about are when some uses slander or libel in order to generate undeserved hate, that will result in others doing actual harm to innocents.

Kinda like the slander or libel people like yourself show towards Trump and his supporters constantly ?

Hate crime laws create a class of protected groups.

 

[Rigby5]

We went to war LEGALLY in Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan etc

The only war that could be legal since we signed the UN charter in 1945, is if we mount a defense against any attack.
All other wars were outlawed by the UN Charter, and the US congress ratified it into US law.

As for Vietnam, the US has no standing to get involved.
The Vietnamese had just thrown off the French and had arranged a Geneva peace treaty that was to result in a nation wide plebiscite in Vietnam, to elect a single leader.
But the US instead violated the peace accord and backed a dictatorship by Diem.
That is totally illegal in many ways.

With Iraq clearly the US just lied. Saddam had nothing at all to do with al Qaeda, and had no significant WMD.

With Afghanistan, while it is true Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan, the Taliban had offered to extradite him to Saudi Arabia, which the US refused. So we had no legal right to harm Afghanistan at all, in any way.

 

[Kondor3]

Trump's renewed calls to jail American flag burners clashes with court precedent

President Trump proposes one-year jail sentences for burning American flags and claims he's working with Congress on legislation, though flag burning remains constitutionally protected

www.foxnews.com

By Ashley Oliver Fox
President Donald Trump revived calls this week for people who burn American flags to go to jail after demonstrators in California were seen torching them and waving Mexican flags in protest of the administration carrying out immigration enforcement operations in the state.

"I happen to think if you burn an American flag, because they were burning a lot of flags in Los Angeles, I think you go to jail for one year, just automatic," Trump told the New York Post.

Flag burning in the United States is neither unlawful nor unconstitutional. Offenders can only be punished under the law for flag burning if they are committing another crime at the same time, such as violating fire safety laws or burning flags that they stole.

18 U.S.C. 245: Federal Protections Against Hate Crimes

Learn how 18 U.S.C. 245 defines federal protections against hate crimes, outlining enforcement, penalties, and the legal framework for prosecution.

legalclarity.org

Protected Classes​

The law specifically protects individuals from violence or intimidation based on race, color, religion, or national origin when such acts interfere with federally protected activities. These classifications reflect a longstanding commitment to combating discrimination in critical aspects of public life. Unlike some other federal hate crime statutes, this law does not cover bias-motivated crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, disability, or gender identity unless they intersect with other federal protections.

The inclusion of race and national origin builds upon prior civil rights legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination in public accommodations and employment. Courts have interpreted these provisions broadly, recognizing that racial animus often manifests in violent attempts to suppress participation in public life. For example, in United States v. Roof, federal prosecutors used hate crime laws to prosecute Dylann Roof for the racially motivated mass shooting at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston.

Religious protections complement other federal statutes, such as the Church Arson Prevention Act, which criminalizes attacks on places of worship. Courts have upheld these protections, emphasizing that individuals must be free to practice their faith without fear of violence. Federal prosecutors have used this statute in cases involving attacks on synagogues, mosques, and churches, reinforcing the government’s role in addressing religiously motivated violence.

Comment:
Flag burning if protected under the 1st amendment.
However flag burning could be considered a hate crime against "national origin"
National origin is a protected class.

Protected speech... even though I loathe such behaviors...