Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-06-2017, 06:24 PM
 
Location: New York Area
35,081 posts, read 17,033,734 times
Reputation: 30246

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
Oh, I don't think Antonin Scalia thought any such thing. He was, after all, part of the majority in Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court decision which established flag-burning as protected speech.
I didn't know that. Did he write the majority opinion, a concurring opinion, or just join in one or the other? I may read but tonight I have other fish to fry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
PS - If you think 'safe zones' violate free speech, then you might want to familiarize yourself with the concept of both. Freedom of speech does not include being provided a forum for speech (ex: Neither you nor I have freedom of speech on this website, which is privately owned by people who are neither you nor I. We merely post here at the pleasure of the owners and their designated agents.). Similarly, neither of us have some sort of right to be provided with a forum to speak at, say, a university.
Read the rest of the link. The problem is when "safe zones" swallow an entire campus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-06-2017, 06:26 PM
 
Location: Secure Bunker
5,461 posts, read 3,236,703 times
Reputation: 5269
I object to flag burning, but if you're going to do it all I ask is that you wrap yourself in it first before you light it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2017, 06:38 PM
 
7,473 posts, read 4,018,818 times
Reputation: 6462
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
I would hope that no one dies protecting a flag. I would hope they die protecting freedom and their brother next to them, if they must die. A flag is a representation of America, which is it's federal government, which should be open to subjective criticism. No one is burning dog tags.

And usually nationalists and xenophobes fly their nations flag unnecessarily.



Some comrades,and quite a few relatives and friends upon their death had their coffins draped with that flag, and their next of kin was handed that flag with a salute and Thanks from a grateful nation.


I will NEVER look upon anyone who burns that flag in "protest" with anything but disgust........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2017, 06:42 PM
 
7,473 posts, read 4,018,818 times
Reputation: 6462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantabridgienne View Post
So... hurting soldiers feelings should be illegal? LOL.


Also, it's terribly sad (and incredibly ridiculous) to me that people would die for a piece of cloth.



No. its what the flag stands for........among others; Honor,duty,country...............
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2017, 07:02 PM
 
24,559 posts, read 18,275,306 times
Reputation: 40260
Freedom of political speech is a first amendment right. Burning a flag as a political protest is protected as long as it is not impacting the safety of others. The fake news coming out of Fox and Breitbart is equally protected by the first amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2017, 07:12 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,173,997 times
Reputation: 21743
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
I guess that goes in one direction. Why do so many of the snowflakes believe it's OK to suppress free speech they don't like, 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?

I see a bit of inconsistency here.
I never said any free speech is suppressible. Inherent with the risk of civil disobedience is being arrested, so what's the problem?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2017, 07:13 PM
 
1,002 posts, read 1,050,331 times
Reputation: 983
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
I would add that people who are against flag burning are the people who never feel the need to protest or feel oppressed. From their perspective there is nothing worse than burning a piece of cloth with hints of nationalism over the pursuit of life in a free nation. I'm all for burning the flag, as I am a proponent of free speech, even when I don't agree with it.
I think therein lies the difference in thought: I say the flag belongs to the people, to the republic. Definitely not the "ruling class". Burn away I guess, but what are you REALLY saying?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2017, 08:03 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,839 posts, read 24,347,720 times
Reputation: 32967
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
I didn't know that. Did he write the majority opinion, a concurring opinion, or just join in one or the other? I may read but tonight I have other fish to fry.

Read the rest of the link. The problem is when "safe zones" swallow an entire campus.
Do you spend a lot of time on college campuses?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2017, 08:05 PM
 
3,338 posts, read 2,141,544 times
Reputation: 5169
The objective answer to the thread title is "No."

It is a legal form of expression, though on its own it does not convey anything worthy of discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2017, 08:26 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,839 posts, read 24,347,720 times
Reputation: 32967
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpinionInOcala View Post
The objective answer to the thread title is "No."

It is a legal form of expression, though on its own it does not convey anything worthy of discussion.
I disagree. When I can identify that a person is enraged, I want to know why...even if I'm probably not in agreement with them. It's amazing what one can learn with an open mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top