What's Your Understanding Of The Act Of Burning The Flag?

[geauxtohell]

Hmm.. Somebody burns the flag and you don't get offended? Your quite the Patriot.

Find it funny? what the hell?

My View: If i see the American Flag burning, i would get offended, i wouldn't find it funny at all, but i can't do anything about it, it's protected by the Constitution..

@ avatar:

<= Oh my God, it's the shield of shame.

(I say that as someone who wore it for four years.)

 

[geauxtohell]

what if you ingest it? what if it goes in an open wound? not to mention it invades the privacy and rights of another person, neither of which burning a flag does

pee comes out of your bladder sterile.. you can drink it.

its not completely sterile as much undigestable/unusable stuff is passed out in it. depending on what you ate and drank leading up to drinking the pee you could be very sick after only drinking a mouthful. there are surivival methods, shown on numerous discovery channels type shows, on how to use just the sun and a hole in the ground to completely sterilize pee to make it safe for unlimited drinking

That's how they teach you to do it at Ranger School. Luckily, it was only a demonstration and we never had to do it.

It will only work for a while. Eventually you become so dehydrated that your body resorbs all the fluid it can and you will stop urinating.

At any rate, I am sure Willow would have no problem drinking the urine of someone who has a UTI. After all, it's sterile, right?

 

[DiamondDave]

We're about 132 posts into the subject, I think it effects people and certainly affects people. Burning the flag is a form of violence, so you are commiting a violent protest. That does infringe on the rights of others. You are up in arms over violating the rights of a single person, while having nary a care over offending many patriots.

Burning a flag is about as much a form of violence as burning a log. Since when has there been a Constitutional right to not be offended? However, that single person does have the a constitutional right to freedom of speech, expression, and flag burning/symbolic speech is his/her protected under that right.

The country does not ritually bury its heroes under a log

There is no right not to be offended... and I fully accept this is protected under free speech.... I will just never show any respect or even common courtesy to a flag burner... and if they would catch themselves on fire in the act, I would not walk across the street to piss on them to put it out

 

[geauxtohell]

I would consider burning the American flag an assault too. I think both make as much sense as free speech protections. You find one of them repulsive. Find them both to be so. Many parallels, except you have closed your mind to one because ddep down you hate your country. Just admit it.

It doesn't matter what you consider it.

It matters what the law considers it.

 

[geauxtohell]

Because it is widely known that to many, the act insulting and will likely prompt a response with anger.

Why dont they simply burn a map of the United States? It is making the same point and in no way would it rpomote anger from those that see the flag as sacred (in a non religious way).

Come on. You are smarter than that. You know why they burn those flags.

And the courts just ruled in favor of the Phelps family, who do things far more abhorrent than burning flags (and were also cited in the OP for burning a flag) such as protesting funerals of veterans killed in action.

The Phelp's family protests funerals specifically to incite a response. If anyone were to attack them during the event, they (the attacker) would be charged with assault. You can't logically make an argument that free speech must be abridged to protect the safety of the person using it since we already have laws that do that.

The first amendment exists to protect un-popular speech. Not things that everyone agrees on.

 

[del]

Think about. Leftwingnuts get pizzed at the government and they burn a flag. Rightwingnuts get pizzed at the government and break out their AK-47's and they expect to be able to do that unpunished, but want the flag burner locked away in prison. What a FN country!!!

Say it again brother!

why? aren't you getting enough stupid partisanship in your daily diet now?

 

[Dante]

Because it is widely known that to many, the act insulting and will likely prompt a response with anger.

Why dont they simply burn a map of the United States? It is making the same point and in no way would it rpomote anger from those that see the flag as sacred (in a non religious way).

Come on. You are smarter than that. You know why they burn those flags.

And the courts just ruled in favor of the Phelps family, who do things far more abhorrent than burning flags (and were also cited in the OP for burning a flag) such as protesting funerals of veterans killed in action.

The Phelp's family protests funerals specifically to incite a response. If anyone were to attack them during the event, they (the attacker) would be charged with assault. You can't logically make an argument that free speech must be abridged to protect the safety of the person using it since we already have laws that do that.

The first amendment exists to protect un-popular speech. Not things that everyone agrees on.

you are both agreeing here.

I have a question, does the Constitution protect speech that is designed to inflame and incite riot?

 

[Dante]

It's great that we live in a country where it isn't illegal to burn the flag.

It is. Burning the flag is disgraceful. But burning it to inflame and incite others should be addressed, and I don't know how.

Shoudn't one get arrested for yelling out 'niggar' on a crowded Harlem St corner (but not at a Tea Party rally). Why? Because inciting violence is not protected freedom of expression? Because disorderly conduct is illegal? Is all protest equal and protected?

 

[Jarhead]

Because it is widely known that to many, the act insulting and will likely prompt a response with anger.

Why dont they simply burn a map of the United States? It is making the same point and in no way would it rpomote anger from those that see the flag as sacred (in a non religious way).

Come on. You are smarter than that. You know why they burn those flags.

And the courts just ruled in favor of the Phelps family, who do things far more abhorrent than burning flags (and were also cited in the OP for burning a flag) such as protesting funerals of veterans killed in action.

The Phelp's family protests funerals specifically to incite a response. If anyone were to attack them during the event, they (the attacker) would be charged with assault. You can't logically make an argument that free speech must be abridged to protect the safety of the person using it since we already have laws that do that.

The first amendment exists to protect un-popular speech. Not things that everyone agrees on.

you are both agreeing here.

I have a question, does the Constitution protect speech that is designed to inflame and incite riot?

No in my eyes. It protects speech for all of us.

It is us, the people, and our lack of repect for the sentiments of others that incites riot.

Those "pot smoking hiipies" of the 60's had a cause they believed in. They spoke out. Many called them "pot smoking hippiss" which minimized the importance of their sentiments, so the firnge element went to the next level in an effort to be heard.

We see the same thing with the tea party. Last April 15th? No artrests, no violence, no racism. And they were ridiculed by those with conflicting sentiments.

So you are surpirsed that the fringe took it to then next level?

No sir. Free speech is a must for the US. How we respect those that use it will dictate how those that use it decide to use it.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I don't think that RWers and LWers view it the same at all.

You RWers tend to take it ultra-personally, as if someone's burning down your abode or something.

So I'd like to get some feedback as to what you think it is, both sides actually.

Something tells me that the reasons will differ quite substantially based on ideology.

????

Its what you're supposed to do when a flag is old and tattered - or when it touches the ground.

Sort of like all those tiny flags on 6" flag posts that people stuck in their yards after 9/11. Most of them were touching the ground, or at some point the wind blew them and they grazed a blade of grass - so those flags are supposed to be burned.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the military, veterans groups, etc. have a ceremony or some sort of formality for disposing of old flags.

 

[Jarhead]

It's great that we live in a country where it isn't illegal to burn the flag.

It is. Burning the flag is disgraceful. But burning it to inflame and incite others should be addressed, and I don't know how.

Shoudn't one get arrested for yelling out 'niggar' on a crowded Harlem St corner (but not at a Tea Party rally). Why? Because inciting violence is not protected freedom of expression? Because disorderly conduct is illegal? Is all protest equal and protected?

I know how and so do you.

Stop ridiculing the cause associated with it. If we let them speak and show respect for their cause, they will not resort to "pissing us off".

Code Pink? I disagree with much they feel. I will never ridicule them. Ever. Let them speak out. They may be less drastic with their tactics.

Cindy Sheehan. Poor soul. I feel for her. But I disagree with her. I respect her cause. And I will never ridicule her.

 

[goldcatt]

Because it is widely known that to many, the act insulting and will likely prompt a response with anger.

Why dont they simply burn a map of the United States? It is making the same point and in no way would it rpomote anger from those that see the flag as sacred (in a non religious way).

Come on. You are smarter than that. You know why they burn those flags.

And the courts just ruled in favor of the Phelps family, who do things far more abhorrent than burning flags (and were also cited in the OP for burning a flag) such as protesting funerals of veterans killed in action.

The Phelp's family protests funerals specifically to incite a response. If anyone were to attack them during the event, they (the attacker) would be charged with assault. You can't logically make an argument that free speech must be abridged to protect the safety of the person using it since we already have laws that do that.

The first amendment exists to protect un-popular speech. Not things that everyone agrees on.

you are both agreeing here.

I have a question, does the Constitution protect speech that is designed to inflame and incite riot?

You know the Brandenburg Rule.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't think that RWers and LWers view it the same at all.

You RWers tend to take it ultra-personally, as if someone's burning down your abode or something.

So I'd like to get some feedback as to what you think it is, both sides actually.

Something tells me that the reasons will differ quite substantially based on ideology.

????

Its what you're supposed to do when a flag is old and tattered - or when it touches the ground.

Sort of like all those tiny flags on 6" flag posts that people stuck in their yards after 9/11. Most of them were touching the ground, or at some point the wind blew them and they grazed a blade of grass - so those flags are supposed to be burned.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the military, veterans groups, etc. have a ceremony or some sort of formality for disposing of old flags.

There is no requirement to burn a flag once it has touched the ground. It is considered to be disrespectful, but you do not have to destroy the flag. Torn and tattered flags should be repectfully burned

 

[Jarhead]

It's great that we live in a country where it isn't illegal to burn the flag.

It is. Burning the flag is disgraceful. But burning it to inflame and incite others should be addressed, and I don't know how.

Shoudn't one get arrested for yelling out 'niggar' on a crowded Harlem St corner (but not at a Tea Party rally). Why? Because inciting violence is not protected freedom of expression? Because disorderly conduct is illegal? Is all protest equal and protected?

I am going outon a limb here, but I need to say this.

And yes, it is off topic, but quite the parralel.

Nancy Pelosi walking through the protesters? A childish move that would likely stir up some people.

Either she is too niave to think that it may anger some of the protesters who saw it as "shoving it in their face", or she knew it would and didnt care, or she knew it would and HOPED it would.

Any of the three are reasons we need to replace her as a memeber of congress.

She has openly ridiculed those that were speaking out. OnApril 15th he called them 'astroturf".

She was around in the 60's Heck, many memebers of congress were those "pot smoking hippies".

They knew how their ridicule would stir up anger.

Why did they know?

Becuase it made them angry in the 60's when Nixon and his administration did it.

 

[Dante]

And the courts just ruled in favor of the Phelps family, who do things far more abhorrent than burning flags (and were also cited in the OP for burning a flag) such as protesting funerals of veterans killed in action.

The Phelp's family protests funerals specifically to incite a response. If anyone were to attack them during the event, they (the attacker) would be charged with assault. You can't logically make an argument that free speech must be abridged to protect the safety of the person using it since we already have laws that do that.

The first amendment exists to protect un-popular speech. Not things that everyone agrees on.

you are both agreeing here.

I have a question, does the Constitution protect speech that is designed to inflame and incite riot?

No in my eyes. It protects speech for all of us.

It is us, the people, and our lack of repect for the sentiments of others that incites riot.

Those "pot smoking hiipies" of the 60's had a cause they believed in. They spoke out. Many called them "pot smoking hippiss" which minimized the importance of their sentiments, so the firnge element went to the next level in an effort to be heard.

We see the same thing with the tea party. Last April 15th? No artrests, no violence, no racism. And they were ridiculed by those with conflicting sentiments.

So you are surpirsed that the fringe took it to then next level?

No sir. Free speech is a must for the US. How we respect those that use it will dictate how those that use it decide to use it.

I am not against free speech I am not for free speech without a few limits. I would not codify it because I think it is a case by case basis.

It's a difficult subject to tackle without a black and white, approach. One cannot shout 'fire' in a crowded theater is the argument made in cases.

The family Phelps is hiding behind protest in order to get publicity for their religious beliefs.

I'm torn between competing principles.

 

[Jarhead]

you are both agreeing here.

I have a question, does the Constitution protect speech that is designed to inflame and incite riot?

No in my eyes. It protects speech for all of us.

It is us, the people, and our lack of repect for the sentiments of others that incites riot.

Those "pot smoking hiipies" of the 60's had a cause they believed in. They spoke out. Many called them "pot smoking hippiss" which minimized the importance of their sentiments, so the firnge element went to the next level in an effort to be heard.

We see the same thing with the tea party. Last April 15th? No artrests, no violence, no racism. And they were ridiculed by those with conflicting sentiments.

So you are surpirsed that the fringe took it to then next level?

No sir. Free speech is a must for the US. How we respect those that use it will dictate how those that use it decide to use it.

I am not against free speech I am not for free speech without a few limits. I would not codify it because I think it is a case by case basis.

It's a difficult subject to tackle without a black and white, approach. One cannot shout 'fire' in a crowded theater is the argument made in cases.

The family Phelps is hiding behind protest in order to get publicity for their religious beliefs.

I'm torn between competing principles.

Dante,

I accepted many years ago; you need to accept the negatives to rewap the rewards of the positives.

For example:

Healthcare. I never complained about my tax dollars being used to pay for those that use the ER. It allowed me fredom of choice regarding insurance.

I do not like to see a flag burning, but I accept it as a consequence of me being allowed to speak out against something I do not like.

I do not agree with abortion. But, to me, it is freedom of choice and I will never say one can not have an abortion. I will always vote in favor for abortion as I see myself voting in favor of freedom of choice.

Same as gay marriage. Not for it or against it. Has no affect on me at all. Let there be a vote? I will vote in favor as I am voting in favor of freedom of choice.

Have fun with it Dante, but that is who I am. I have never been called a hypocrite by anyone who knows me. And I know you dont see me as one.

Alas, many on here do as they know I am a conservative.

 

[Dante]

It's great that we live in a country where it isn't illegal to burn the flag.

It is. Burning the flag is disgraceful. But burning it to inflame and incite others should be addressed, and I don't know how.

Shoudn't one get arrested for yelling out 'niggar' on a crowded Harlem St corner (but not at a Tea Party rally). Why? Because inciting violence is not protected freedom of expression? Because disorderly conduct is illegal? Is all protest equal and protected?

I know how and so do you.

Stop ridiculing the cause associated with it. If we let them speak and show respect for their cause, they will not resort to "pissing us off".

Code Pink? I disagree with much they feel. I will never ridicule them. Ever. Let them speak out. They may be less drastic with their tactics.

Cindy Sheehan. Poor soul. I feel for her. But I disagree with her. I respect her cause. And I will never ridicule her.

Respect for the cause? If the cause is to piss me off, I can ignore it--but to respect is asking too much. I am not a follower of that Jewish kid Jesus.

I defend Code Pink's right to priotest while agreeing they should be arrested or thrown out of venues where their only purpose is to disrupt others from engaging in their free speech rights. Abridging then free speech of others is a crime.

I would also agree that my slapping the family Phelps should get me arrested. But me slapping them would be a civil obligation and is would not be an extreme form of law breaking.

Respect must be shown on the part of the protesters, unless they are protesting something egregious---which is a judgment call. Egregious would be difficult to catalog and categorize, But like obscenity, we'll know it when we see it.

Cindy Sheehan? I respect her cause and her. I disagree with her. I would never slander or debase a Gold Star Mother for grieving--like most on the right did. I did want her to shut up when she went beyond her grieving and into politics.

 

[Dante]

And the courts just ruled in favor of the Phelps family, who do things far more abhorrent than burning flags (and were also cited in the OP for burning a flag) such as protesting funerals of veterans killed in action.

The Phelp's family protests funerals specifically to incite a response. If anyone were to attack them during the event, they (the attacker) would be charged with assault. You can't logically make an argument that free speech must be abridged to protect the safety of the person using it since we already have laws that do that.

The first amendment exists to protect un-popular speech. Not things that everyone agrees on.

you are both agreeing here.

I have a question, does the Constitution protect speech that is designed to inflame and incite riot?

You know the Brandenburg Rule.

explain it.

 

[Jarhead]

It is. Burning the flag is disgraceful. But burning it to inflame and incite others should be addressed, and I don't know how.

Shoudn't one get arrested for yelling out 'niggar' on a crowded Harlem St corner (but not at a Tea Party rally). Why? Because inciting violence is not protected freedom of expression? Because disorderly conduct is illegal? Is all protest equal and protected?

I know how and so do you.

Stop ridiculing the cause associated with it. If we let them speak and show respect for their cause, they will not resort to "pissing us off".

Code Pink? I disagree with much they feel. I will never ridicule them. Ever. Let them speak out. They may be less drastic with their tactics.

Cindy Sheehan. Poor soul. I feel for her. But I disagree with her. I respect her cause. And I will never ridicule her.

Respect for the cause? If the cause is to piss me off, I can ignore it--but to respect is asking too much. I am not a follower of that Jewish kid Jesus.

I defend Code Pink's right to priotest while agreeing they should be arrested or thrown out of venues where their only purpose is to disrupt others from engaging in their free speech rights. Abridging then free speech of others is a crime.

I would also agree that my slapping the family Phelps should get me arrested. But me slapping them would be a civil obligation and is would not be an extreme form of law breaking.

Respect must be shown on the part of the protesters, unless they are protesting something egregious---which is a judgment call. Egregious would be difficult to catalog and categorize, But like obscenity, we'll know it when we see it.

Cindy Sheehan? I respect her cause and her. I disagree with her. I would never slander or debase a Gold Star Mother for grieving--like most on the right did. I did want her to shut up when she went beyond her grieving and into politics.

So we are on the same page.
The only difference?
I bleive those that get violent or extreme are reacting to those that show them no respect when they spoke out.
Like those in the 60's
Like the Tea Partyers
Like Cindy Sheehan

 

[Dante]

It's great that we live in a country where it isn't illegal to burn the flag.

It is. Burning the flag is disgraceful. But burning it to inflame and incite others should be addressed, and I don't know how.

Shoudn't one get arrested for yelling out 'niggar' on a crowded Harlem St corner (but not at a Tea Party rally). Why? Because inciting violence is not protected freedom of expression? Because disorderly conduct is illegal? Is all protest equal and protected?

I am going outon a limb here, but I need to say this.

And yes, it is off topic, but quite the parralel.

Nancy Pelosi walking through the protesters? A childish move that would likely stir up some people.

Either she is too niave to think that it may anger some of the protesters who saw it as "shoving it in their face", or she knew it would and didnt care, or she knew it would and HOPED it would.

Any of the three are reasons we need to replace her as a memeber of congress.

She has openly ridiculed those that were speaking out. OnApril 15th he called them 'astroturf".

She was around in the 60's Heck, many memebers of congress were those "pot smoking hippies".

They knew how their ridicule would stir up anger.

Why did they know?

Becuase it made them angry in the 60's when Nixon and his administration did it.

The Speaker of the House walking through what is supposed to be a non violent protest should be a non event. Hatred about policies and not individuals is what the Tea Party people say they are about. Pelosi and others just took them at their word, or decided to expose the myth. that is hardly a crime or an invitation to riot or break the law. Pelosi is an elected public servant and an elected leader within our government.

The very same principle the right argues about, that we should respect the SCOTUS sitting in the House chambers is thrown away when it comes to respecting Democratic Party members. and btw, I do not think Obama meant any disrespect to SCOTUS. In fact he made his comments with all due resepct.