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.
In any event, I just don't understand why protesters seem to think offending or inconveniencing people is a good idea. Reminds me of when Black Lives Matter tied up Manhattan traffic just before Thanksgiving 2014. My son was on his way into New York City by bus from Lehigh University and I was on my way to pick him up at Port Authority. His bus took three hours to make it from Liberty Airport in Newark to New York. I never made it in since the traffic was, as shown by MapQuest gridlocked all the way from NYC back to Mamaroneck in Westchester County. Fortunately I reached my son, an intelligent, resourceful 18 year old at the time and he walked across town to Grand Central Terminal. I picked him up at the Metro North Station in Larchmont.
Do you think I was influenced favorably towards BLM?
Flag burning has a similar effect on people; it either enrages or disgusts them or at best their neutral. I'm not going to say, "those people must really hate Trump so so will I." The question for debate is whether flag burning is a good way to express political views. I submit that it is not.
No it is not, and I seriously doubt that our Servicemen and women really fought for the rights of these idiots. My Father spent 4 years in the Pacific during World War II, and he did NOT defend the right to burn the flag. The interpretation of "free speech" in our nation is often ridiculous, as in this case.
I'm sick of people calling everything anyone does or says "free speech" or "protected speech." This is used to justify seeking to avoid responsibility and consequences for personal actions that infringe on the rights of others. That can include anything from running into a crowded auditorium and shouting "Fire!" to flag burning, breaking windows, burning cars and any other action one imagines is "their right."
If people want to burn their own underwear or set their own hair on fire, it's freedom of expression. When they burn the flag of millions of people who are proud of the freedom and honor it represents, they have moved beyond their own "rights" to trampling on the rights of others. Sadly, many misguided people think that getting 5-minutes attention for their imagined cause is more important than the rights of everyone else.
I'm sick of people calling everything anyone does or says "free speech" or "protected speech." This is used to justify seeking to avoid responsibility and consequences for personal actions that infringe on the rights of others. That can include anything from running into a crowded auditorium and shouting "Fire!" to flag burning, breaking windows, burning cars and any other action one imagines is "their right."
If people want to burn their own underwear or set their own hair on fire, it's freedom of expression. When they burn the flag of millions of people who are proud of the freedom and honor it represents, they have moved beyond their own "rights" to trampling on the rights of others.
How does someone burning a flag, their own personal property, trample on the rights of anyone else?
Shouting fire in a crowded theater is a public safety issue
Breaking another person's windows is destruction of another person's property
Breaking your own windows, like burning your own flag, harms no one.
Burning another person's car is destruction of another persons' property
Burning your own car, like burning your own flag, harms no one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan85
No it is not, and I seriously doubt that our Servicemen and women really fought for the rights of these idiots. My Father spent 4 years in the Pacific during World War II, and he did NOT defend the right to burn the flag. The interpretation of "free speech" in our nation is often ridiculous, as in this case.
What's ridiculous about not making an action that harms no one illegal?
1 - A person has the right to burn a flag and demonstrate against said country
2 - Another person has the right to kick person A's ass in accordance with said flag burning
freedom of speech does not mean abstinence of consequences
In any event, I just don't understand why protesters seem to think offending or inconveniencing people is a good idea. Reminds me of when Black Lives Matter tied up Manhattan traffic just before Thanksgiving 2014. My son was on his way into New York City by bus from Lehigh University and I was on my way to pick him up at Port Authority. His bus took three hours to make it from Liberty Airport in Newark to New York. I never made it in since the traffic was, as shown by MapQuest gridlocked all the way from NYC back to Mamaroneck in Westchester County. Fortunately I reached my son, an intelligent, resourceful 18 year old at the time and he walked across town to Grand Central Terminal. I picked him up at the Metro North Station in Larchmont.
Do you think I was influenced favorably towards BLM?
Flag burning has a similar effect on people; it either enrages or disgusts them or at best their neutral. I'm not going to say, "those people must really hate Trump so so will I." The question for debate is whether flag burning is a good way to express political views. I submit that it is not.
There is really only one sentiment that flag burning is good for conveying - that the country is not just making errors, but that the errors are so egregious that you literally hate the country entirely. It's like saying you think the country should start over because its problems are beyond repair, rather than reforming on some issue such as police brutality.
Flag burning really upsets some people, which is why it can be an effective tool of protest. Some people care more about the cloth than the freedom it represents.
It seems as though a growing army of malcontents are now re-thinking the concept of free speech. Speech they don't approve of is called out as an affront to THEIR notions of what "free" should mean. When someone is protesting in a manner that is offensive to others that form of speech must be protected, if for no other reason than to shame the individual.
Anna Quindlen had it right when she observed this by stating the obvious:
"Ignorant free speech often works against the speaker. That is one of several reasons why it must be given rein instead of suppressed."
1 - A person has the right to burn a flag and demonstrate against said country
2 - Another person has the right to kick person A's ass in accordance with said flag burning
freedom of speech does not mean abstinence of consequences
Burning a flag is a protected act.
Kicking someone's ass is not.
Yeah, Americans don't actually have the legal "right" to [physically assault someone who hurts their feelings by setting their own piece of cloth on fire.
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.
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.
