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.
Yes, it is speak, objectionable speech to be sure, but the only type of speech which actually needs to be protected is objectionable speech.
I suggest the proponents of the first amendment and for making flag burning and religious book burning unconstitutional read about the "alien and sedition" acts. Which was law, before the Supreme court overturned it.
All about free speech, and where we developed most of the precedent that we have today concerning it.
Do you believe flag burning / Koran bible cross burning/ should be illegal? 1st amendment right question.
Absolutely! Without a doubt. I hate people who burn the US flag but it should be legal. It's clearly protected speech and I should be able to burn anything I choose.
I suggest the proponents of the first amendment and for making flag burning and religious book burning unconstitutional read about the "alien and sedition" acts. Which was law, before the Supreme court overturned it.
All about free speech, and where we developed most of the precedent that we have today concerning it.
What do those videos have to do with the price of tea in China? You're really not supporting your own point with this.
At issue was the legality of burning a flag or a book; what you have just illustrated is the violence potential of PROTESTS. They can turn violent even when no flag is burned, and it's not the flag burning that necessarily makes them violent; it's really the people are pissed off about something and some opposition force is trying to suppress them. So if that's your concern, then your issue should be with protests per se, not flag burning.
And furthermore, that's not even addressing the issue of whether people who don't like a flag or book being burned are justified by responding violently, as some Muslims seem to do in the second video you posted (answer: no, they're not justified).
It seems to me that you would benefit from a course in logical reasoning and deduction.
I personally believe flag burning should be illegal and it should never be protected by 1st amendment right.
1. The flag, does not represent a specific idea or opinion, but rather the entire nation. Flag burning therefore does not express a legitimate form of speech and should be unlawful.
The act of burning a flag is in and of itself a political statement.
The 1st Amendment protects all political speech, but does not protect social speech or private speech.
The act of burning a flag is no different than burning the Constitution, or having a tractor-trailer come and dump all 60 volumes and 900 Million pages of Obamacare into the street to be burnt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
2. Some people may argue that flag burning is a form of freedom of speech and it should be protected by constitution. However, "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic.
If you try to make a point about something by comparison, and if you do so by comparing it with the wrong thing, then your reasoning uses the fallacy of faulty comparison or the fallacy of questionable analogy.
The problem is that the items in the analogy are too dissimilar. When reasoning by analogy, the fallacy occurs when the analogy is irrelevant or very weak or when there is a more relevant disanalogy.
Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not political speech, and therefore, not protect by the 1st Amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution."
It is protected speech. Holmes got it wrong, because he was a dumbass.
How stupid was Holmes?
Olmsteadv. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564 (1928) held that telephone wiretaps are not forbidden by the Fourth Amendment.
Holmes and Brandeis agreed that the 14th Amendment allowed wire taps.
Overruled by Berger v. State of N.Y., 388 U.S. 41, 64, 87 S.Ct. 1873, 1886 (1967) (Douglas, J., concurring) ("I join the opinion of the Court because at long last it overrules sub silentioOlmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944, and its offspring and brings wiretapping and other electronic eavesdropping fully within the purview of the Fourth Amendment.") and by Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347, 362, n., 88 S.Ct. 507, 517 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring) ("... today's decision must be recognized as overruling Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944, which essentially rested on the ground that conversations were not subject to the protection of the Fourth Amendment.").
That shows you just how stupid Holmes really was.....he was dumber than a village idiot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
Setting flag on fire can cause unnecessary panic as well. As a matter of fact, playing fire in public is very dangerous.
Then stay out of France, especially Paris, since they like to over-turn cars and set them on fire to create barricades.....which makes them a helluva lot smarter than your average American.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
"Horry County Police confirm that a suspect has been taken into custody in connection with today's flag burning at St. James High School.
Horry County Police Lt. Robert Kegler identified the suspect as 17-year-old Nick Newell. According to the J. Reuben Long Detention Center website, he's charged with third-degree arson. As of Monday night he remains in jail, awaiting a bond hearing.
There are appropriate places to burn flags...in a classroom is not one of them....neither is a petrol-station.
Outdoors on school grounds is fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
3. Burning flag, or religious symbol like bible, cross, or the Koran may have serious consequences.
Indeed.....if flag-burning causes the government to stop secretly imprisoning Americans then, that would be a serious consequence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
In circumstances such as the desecration of the flag, the question raised is: How much more will America tolerate-today?
Loaded language is emotive terminology that expresses value judgments. When used in what appears to be an objective description, the terminology unfortunately can cause the listener to adopt those values when in fact no good reason has been given for doing so.
Burning the Flag is not desecration.
Desecrating the Flag is permitting it to fly at night with no light shining on it.
Flags which are worn, torn, faded or otherwise unfit to be flown are burned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
Are you kidding me? Clearly you haven't watched this?
Clearly you haven't provided links to transcripts of the videos, so people don't waste their precious and valuable time on stupid stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
well I guess you and I have different priorities then.
My priority is defending the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
You believe that one idiot's behavior (like burning the Koran) should be protected by constitution even though many people lives have to be lost because of that idiotic behavior.
Burning a Koran may or may not constitute political speech.
Burning one in anger at Turkey is not political speech, but burning one directed at Iran is political speech, since Iran is a theocracy, specifically to wit: an Islamic Republic.
When burning a Koran as a social or cultural statement, or a private statement, it is not protected by the 1st Amendment, but then if you want to burn a Koran on your own property, there isn't much anyone can do about it, except start stupid threads.
Constitutionally....
The act of burning a flag is in and of itself a political statement.
The 1st Amendment protects all political speech, but does not protect social speech or private speech.
The act of burning a flag is no different than burning the Constitution, or having a tractor-trailer come and dump all 60 volumes and 900 Million pages of Obamacare into the street to be burnt.
If you try to make a point about something by comparison, and if you do so by comparing it with the wrong thing, then your reasoning uses the fallacy of faulty comparison or the fallacy of questionable analogy.
The problem is that the items in the analogy are too dissimilar. When reasoning by analogy, the fallacy occurs when the analogy is irrelevant or very weak or when there is a more relevant disanalogy.
Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not political speech, and therefore, not protect by the 1st Amendment.
It is protected speech. Holmes got it wrong, because he was a dumbass.
How stupid was Holmes?
Olmsteadv. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564 (1928) held that telephone wiretaps are not forbidden by the Fourth Amendment.
Holmes and Brandeis agreed that the 14th Amendment allowed wire taps.
Overruled by Berger v. State of N.Y., 388 U.S. 41, 64, 87 S.Ct. 1873, 1886 (1967) (Douglas, J., concurring) ("I join the opinion of the Court because at long last it overrules sub silentioOlmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944, and its offspring and brings wiretapping and other electronic eavesdropping fully within the purview of the Fourth Amendment.") and by Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347, 362, n., 88 S.Ct. 507, 517 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring) ("... today's decision must be recognized as overruling Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944, which essentially rested on the ground that conversations were not subject to the protection of the Fourth Amendment.").
That shows you just how stupid Holmes really was.....he was dumber than a village idiot.
Then stay out of France, especially Paris, since they like to over-turn cars and set them on fire to create barricades.....which makes them a helluva lot smarter than your average American.
There are appropriate places to burn flags...in a classroom is not one of them....neither is a petrol-station.
Outdoors on school grounds is fine.
Indeed.....if flag-burning causes the government to stop secretly imprisoning Americans then, that would be a serious consequence.
Loaded language is emotive terminology that expresses value judgments. When used in what appears to be an objective description, the terminology unfortunately can cause the listener to adopt those values when in fact no good reason has been given for doing so.
Burning the Flag is not desecration.
Desecrating the Flag is permitting it to fly at night with no light shining on it.
Flags which are worn, torn, faded or otherwise unfit to be flown are burned.
Clearly you haven't provided links to transcripts of the videos, so people don't waste their precious and valuable time on stupid stuff.
My priority is defending the Constitution.
Burning a Koran may or may not constitute political speech.
Burning one in anger at Turkey is not political speech, but burning one directed at Iran is political speech, since Iran is a theocracy, specifically to wit: an Islamic Republic.
When burning a Koran as a social or cultural statement, or a private statement, it is not protected by the 1st Amendment, but then if you want to burn a Koran on your own property, there isn't much anyone can do about it, except start stupid threads.
Constitutionally....
Mircea
Yeah I wouldn't be surprised that you gave these answers. Thank you anyway.
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.
