Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Flag-burning constitutes a form of "symbolic speech" that is protected by the 1st Amendment. Even though it might be considered offensive by many, society's outrage is not justification for suppressing Free Speech.
And I maintain the right to stop the activity by any means I deem appropriate.
And I maintain the right to stop the activity by any means I deem appropriate.
You are saying that you do not believe in the Constitution or the Supreme Court. I consider that to be far worse than burning a piece of cloth or plastic.
And I maintain the right to stop the activity by any means I deem appropriate.
You are saying that you do not believe in the Constitution or the Supreme Court. I consider that to be far worse than burning a piece of cloth or plastic.
So you are saying that there is a right to burn a flag but not pour water on a burning flag? That's a very interesting debate proposition.
It is so typical that people assert a right to speech, but a right to shut down opposing speech. You see it on college campuses where people asserted a right during the 1960's to take over academic or administration buildings to oppose the Vietnam War. I didn't get the connection I didn't get back in those days when I was 11 or 12 years old, perhaps I was too stupid. Yet often the same or similar protesters asserted the right to shut down speakers such as Milton Friedman, a quality academic, deemed too far right. Or why do so many of the people believe it's OK to suppress free speech they don't like or "scares" them, see Syracuse cancels Israel film screening: Will offend ‘BDS faction,’ gender-studies faculty? Is certain kinds of non-violent free speech suppressible, whereas other violent expression OK because, after all, the objective is President Trump?
So you are saying that there is a right to burn a flag but not pour water on a burning flag?
Get your head straight There was a right for blacks to march across the Pettus Bridge. There was not a right for police to mass and brutally beat them for it.
You do so at the risk of substantial fines and imprisonment.
Yes, as previously stated (many times) actions have consequences. It is up to the individual as to whether the actions are worth the consequences.
That applies equally to both sides of the debate.
Is being attacked by someone who considers himself a patriot worth expressing your political viewpoint by burning a flag?
Is the arrest, fines, and jail time worth stomping a protester that made you VERY angry?
Personally, this Vietnam veteran and military retiree says a resounding "NO!" to both questions.
Your personal opinions are 100% irrelevant. Just like those of every other individual. These are not matters that any individual has the right to decide. You do have the right to express your opinions, but no one has a right to frustrate or beat you over them. This is part of the price we all pay for living in society such as the one you seem to think you once protected.
I wouldn't know, since I'm not a special snowflake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
Is certain kinds of non-violent free speech suppressible, whereas other violent expression OK because, after all, the objective is President Trump?
I didn't vote for Trump (or Hilliary), but I do support some of his policies. I don't have any issues with protests or protestors. If they want to enjoin non-violent or violent protests, that's on them. I'm free to engage them or ignore them as I see fit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.