@DIMEMAN said: @TNP777 - Freedom of Speech is not what is on trial here. I am for FOS as much as anybody. It's the fact that some of you are say Flag burning is OK because it does not say you can't in the Constitution. That is what is completely asinine! Go read the 1st Amendment...please....and tell me where in there you get the idea that it is OK to burn the Flag!!! PLEASE!!!!
I know it's not just a CU thing, but it is distressingly common here to avoid responding to direct questions when the answers to those questions would actually advance the conversation.
I'll try again. You want the government to create an exception/loophole to freedom of speech that does not allow flag burning. Presumably, you believe the government has the legal authority to do that through some process. Using that same process, what exceptions/loopholes to freedom of speech do you believe the government does NOT have the power to create? Why do you believe they have the power to create some exceptions, but not others?
This is the problem. People who say it is OK to burn the Flag are the ones with the loophole. Burning the Flag has nothing to do with SPEECH.
Then ultimately your beef lies with the 5 Supreme Court justices who ruled that Flag-burning is Constitutional, not the Flag burners themselves. There is no loophole, Jon. There is only the Constitution as ruled on by the highest court in the land.
@DIMEMAN said: @TNP777 - Freedom of Speech is not what is on trial here. I am for FOS as much as anybody. It's the fact that some of you are say Flag burning is OK because it does not say you can't in the Constitution. That is what is completely asinine! Go read the 1st Amendment...please....and tell me where in there you get the idea that it is OK to burn the Flag!!! PLEASE!!!!
Can you show me where in the 1st Amendment it says it's OK to publish cat photos on Facebook?
Totally off subject. What does Cats and Facebook have to do with Free Speech??!!
Everything. You say flag burners are using a loophole to burn the Flag. They're not. It's not mentioned anywhere in the 45 words that make up 1A. Tabe points to cat pictures on Facebook as another example of something that' s not specifically covered in 1A.
You keep talking about a loophole, Jon. but there simply isn't one.
@DIMEMAN said: @TNP777 - Freedom of Speech is not what is on trial here. I am for FOS as much as anybody. It's the fact that some of you are say Flag burning is OK because it does not say you can't in the Constitution. That is what is completely asinine! Go read the 1st Amendment...please....and tell me where in there you get the idea that it is OK to burn the Flag!!! PLEASE!!!!
I know it's not just a CU thing, but it is distressingly common here to avoid responding to direct questions when the answers to those questions would actually advance the conversation.
I'll try again. You want the government to create an exception/loophole to freedom of speech that does not allow flag burning. Presumably, you believe the government has the legal authority to do that through some process. Using that same process, what exceptions/loopholes to freedom of speech do you believe the government does NOT have the power to create? Why do you believe they have the power to create some exceptions, but not others?
This is the problem. People who say it is OK to burn the Flag are the ones with the loophole. Burning the Flag has nothing to do with SPEECH.
Then ultimately your beef lies with the 5 Supreme Court justices who ruled that Flag-burning is Constitutional, not the Flag burners themselves. There is no loophole, Jon. There is only the Constitution as ruled on by the highest court in the land.
That SCOUS was very Liberal and would be OK with anything. I have a beef with them and the dirtbags that use this misinterpatation of the 1A. It is TOTALLY insane to call Flag burning...SPEECH!!!
And futhermore the 1A is not a complete list of things you can do or not do. It is strickly covering speech and what you can say and print!
Jon, you must have missed my previous post on the makeup of the 5 justices that ruled in favor of the constitutionality of flat burning. 1 was a Nixon appointee (Harry Blackmun) and 2 others were Reagan appointees (Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy).
@DIMEMAN said: @TNP777 - Freedom of Speech is not what is on trial here. I am for FOS as much as anybody. It's the fact that some of you are say Flag burning is OK because it does not say you can't in the Constitution. That is what is completely asinine! Go read the 1st Amendment...please....and tell me where in there you get the idea that it is OK to burn the Flag!!! PLEASE!!!!
I know it's not just a CU thing, but it is distressingly common here to avoid responding to direct questions when the answers to those questions would actually advance the conversation.
I'll try again. You want the government to create an exception/loophole to freedom of speech that does not allow flag burning. Presumably, you believe the government has the legal authority to do that through some process. Using that same process, what exceptions/loopholes to freedom of speech do you believe the government does NOT have the power to create? Why do you believe they have the power to create some exceptions, but not others?
This is the problem. People who say it is OK to burn the Flag are the ones with the loophole. Burning the Flag has nothing to do with SPEECH.
Then ultimately your beef lies with the 5 Supreme Court justices who ruled that Flag-burning is Constitutional, not the Flag burners themselves. There is no loophole, Jon. There is only the Constitution as ruled on by the highest court in the land.
And futhermore the 1A is not a complete list of things you can do or not do. It is strickly covering speech and what you can say and print!
That is simply not true. 1A doesn’t just cover the spoken word. It covers violent video games, political cartoons, all manners of art, music, opinion pieces, books, and countless other ways American citizens express themselves.
@doubledragon said:
If kaepernick wants to protest, there are other ways of protesting without disrespecting the flag.
Yes, there are. But would they have had the same impact(both positive and negative, depending on your point of view)? Obviously that’s unknowable, but I think it’s unlikely the needle would have even wiggled had he done something other than kneel - which action was suggested by an ex-Green Beret, btw.
As always, I’m more concerned and interested in the substance of Kaepernick’s protest than I am with how he protested. I know most here are equally disgusted by both the substance and the manner of his protest.
Interesting wiki entry in exceptions to free speech. There are countless rabbit holes to dive into as to what constitutes free speech. To me, one of the most disgusting is Snyder v Phelps, which saw SCOTUS rule in favor, 8-1, of the repugnant Westboro Baptist Church (the GOD HATES (everyone) church).
That SCOUS was very Liberal and would be OK with anything. I have a beef with them and the dirtbags that use this misinterpatation of the 1A. It is TOTALLY insane to call Flag burning...SPEECH!!!
I'll ask again - what are you using as your definition of "speech"?
@DIMEMAN said: @TNP777 - Freedom of Speech is not what is on trial here. I am for FOS as much as anybody. It's the fact that some of you are say Flag burning is OK because it does not say you can't in the Constitution. That is what is completely asinine! Go read the 1st Amendment...please....and tell me where in there you get the idea that it is OK to burn the Flag!!! PLEASE!!!!
I know it's not just a CU thing, but it is distressingly common here to avoid responding to direct questions when the answers to those questions would actually advance the conversation.
I'll try again. You want the government to create an exception/loophole to freedom of speech that does not allow flag burning. Presumably, you believe the government has the legal authority to do that through some process. Using that same process, what exceptions/loopholes to freedom of speech do you believe the government does NOT have the power to create? Why do you believe they have the power to create some exceptions, but not others?
This is the problem. People who say it is OK to burn the Flag are the ones with the loophole. Burning the Flag has nothing to do with SPEECH.
Then ultimately your beef lies with the 5 Supreme Court justices who ruled that Flag-burning is Constitutional, not the Flag burners themselves. There is no loophole, Jon. There is only the Constitution as ruled on by the highest court in the land.
My beef is with SCJ as well as the scumbags that do the burning, they are both equally bad in my opinion. > @TNP777 said:
Ah, but Paul didn't point out that some speech is off limits, at least not as it concerns 1A. What he said is that one may exercise his right to free speech, but that doesn't shield one from the consequences of exercising said right. Almost all states have "at-will" employment laws, meaning one can be fired without or without cause. If I go out and call someone a (insert racially insensitive word), I can be fired. Yes, I exercised my right to free speech, but my dumb ass still got legally fired. I'm not gonna go to jail, but I there's a good chance I'm going to the unemployment office.
The question again is, where do we draw that line? You want to ban desecration of the Flag and shooting Eagles (which is already illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_and_Golden_Eagle_Protection_Act). Drawn to it's logical and inevitable conclusion, it will lead to average Joes like us having no rights whatsoever, because any good idea always leads to it being perverted by people who twist it to suit their own ends.
Geordie, I am under the impression that outstide LE it is actually difficult to fire someone without just cause or with reasonable cause. I have many friends in the private sector non union shops that are always complaining that it is in fact difficult to fire someone, I’m not saying your right or wrong but if a person in the workplace wants to use offensive words but not against anyone then he is probably free to do so? Again I do t know all that much how the private sector goes. Aside from that it is absolutely obvious that the 2A has been amended several times and is not considered cut and dry so why shouldn’t they do the same for 1A regarding flag burning? And I want to ask you ( without picking a fight mind you ) is your issue with people like me who hate flag burners and kneelers because it’s NOT illegal? Are you ok with it since it’s legal? If it became illegal would you change your stance?
That SCOUS was very Liberal and would be OK with anything. I have a beef with them and the dirtbags that use this misinterpatation of the 1A. It is TOTALLY insane to call Flag burning...SPEECH!!!
I'll ask again - what are you using as your definition of "speech"?
Not sure why your so bent on him explaining it, it’s obvious he is looking at the flag burning as a physical act not a verbal one.
Paul, rather than me explaining it and muddying it up beyond all recognition, I'll point you here. It basically says this, though:
At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
I have no issue as it concerns those who are against flag burners, whatever their reasons (seen as unpatriotic, disrespectful, mad because it's not against the law). Your right to free speech extends to being upset with burning or otherwise protesting the Flag.
My stance should protest against the Flag become illegal? That's a good question, actually. Do I like the Flag being burned in protest? No, I do not. Not even a little bit. But I do fear the slippery slope if it becomes illegal. When we legislate what forms of protest are acceptable (non-violent ones, of course), then it's only a matter of time before other forms of protest are deemed unacceptable, and then we're well on the way to authoritarian rule. I would hope none of us want that.
As I have been clear about before, I do not personally find Kaepernick's kneeling during the Anthem to be offensive, but understand and accept that others do.
That SCOUS was very Liberal and would be OK with anything. I have a beef with them and the dirtbags that use this misinterpatation of the 1A. It is TOTALLY insane to call Flag burning...SPEECH!!!
I'll ask again - what are you using as your definition of "speech"?
The Senate attempted to pass a bill outlawing flag burning in 2006. It failed by one vote. One of the senators voting no was Mitch McConnell. He stated his reasons at the time, and has repeated them over the years. As long as Ol' Mitch is Senate Majority Leader, you can count on any new attempt to outlaw flag burning as likely never seeing the floor for a vote.
That SCOUS was very Liberal and would be OK with anything. I have a beef with them and the dirtbags that use this misinterpatation of the 1A. It is TOTALLY insane to call Flag burning...SPEECH!!!
I'll ask again - what are you using as your definition of "speech"?
I answered you once....look it up.
My apologies. You did.
So, based on your definition, sign language is not speech.
That SCOUS was very Liberal and would be OK with anything. I have a beef with them and the dirtbags that use this misinterpatation of the 1A. It is TOTALLY insane to call Flag burning...SPEECH!!!
I'll ask again - what are you using as your definition of "speech"?
Not sure why your so bent on him explaining it, it’s obvious he is looking at the flag burning as a physical act not a verbal one.
The point is that speech comes in many forms - verbal being just one of them.
That SCOUS was very Liberal and would be OK with anything. I have a beef with them and the dirtbags that use this misinterpatation of the 1A. It is TOTALLY insane to call Flag burning...SPEECH!!!
I'll ask again - what are you using as your definition of "speech"?
Not sure why your so bent on him explaining it, it’s obvious he is looking at the flag burning as a physical act not a verbal one.
The point is that speech comes in many forms - verbal being just one of them.
Yea I’m well aware, I wasn’t the one who is confused by this.
@DIMEMAN said:
Sure can......stuff that comes out of your mouth or put on paper!
OK, so if I wanted to dress up as (fill in politician here) and walk around the town square portraying him in an unflattering light, but not speaking, the government could prohibit that?
Is the American flag the only thing that the government could prohibit burning? How about Korans, police uniforms, reproductions of the Declaration of Independence, photos of flags, ......?
If I perform some sleight of hand and go through all of the motions of burning a flag, in the public square, and everyone who watches actually believes I burned an American flag because I said I was burning an American flag, but I didn't, could the government prohibit that?
I could go on ad infinitum with stuff like this, but my point is that I don't want the government deciding the answers to the millions of cases that would inundate them if we were ever to go down your path and declare the 1st amendment conditional on whether or not some group of people is offended (trust me, prohibiting flag burning would open the floodgates for other snowflakes who were offended by some other conduct). You can want flag burning prohibited or you can want less government control, but you can't want both. Banning flag burning would inevitably make us all subject to more government control than a free people could ever tolerate.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@2dueces said:
CK was a normal person, a professional football player until he met his Muslim girlfriend. After she filled his head with anti American BS CK was convinced that America values were wrong. His oppression was being raised by two white parents in a middle class home. The police shooting were because suspects refused to obey simple commands. What CK really was kneeling for was his hatred of America. It now become apparent that he would be opposed to anything America and our values. I suggest he takes his America hating girlfriend and travel to the Middle East and find a faction more suited for their values.
Wow. I like this guy. What kind of beer do you drink ? Next one's on me.
Same here, that should be a plaque posted next to every Nike Ad
@1970s said:
Do people here know what year our supreme court gave people in this country the right to burn the flag ? Do people here know how many years in America it was ILLEGAL to do it ?
1989, but it doesn’t much matter how many years it was illegal to do so, does it? That’s completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Might as well ask when slavery was abolished, and how many years it was LEGAL to own another person.
Point being, it doesn’t matter when a law was made or overturned, or how long that law was or wasn’t in effect. What matters is what the law is now.
@dallasactuary freaking nails it in his last post. You’re either for free speech in its sordid entirety, or you’re for more government control of our lives. You can’t have it both ways. The instant we start picking and choosing what’s offensive and what’s not, Pandora’s Box flies open and will not close.
I, for one, am not down for authoritarian rule, which is where this, among other things, would lead us.
Great post 1970’s. Try this one on for size, how about burning a Quran or Muslim prayer rug on social media? The torches would be lit and the person would be led to the gallos lol. The only things that are not considered wrong are the things that fit the agenda of the liberal masses.
@1970s said:
Do people here know what year our supreme court gave people in this country the right to burn the flag ? Do people here know how many years in America it was ILLEGAL to do it ?
1989, but it doesn’t much matter how many years it was illegal to do so, does it? That’s completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Might as well ask when slavery was abolished, and how many years it was LEGAL to own another person.
Point being, it doesn’t matter when a law was made or overturned, or how long that law was or wasn’t in effect. What matters is what the law is now.
@dallasactuary freaking nails it in his last post. You’re either for free speech in its sordid entirety, or you’re for more government control of our lives. You can’t have it both ways. The instant we start picking and choosing what’s offensive and what’s not, Pandora’s Box flies open and will not close.
I, for one, am not down for authoritarian rule, which is where this, among other things, would lead us.
You DO realize that total free speech is a myth, correct ?
You do realize there is not FREE SPEECH in our private schools and public schools ?
You've heard of bullying, harassment, and hate speech in the work place ?
You have heard of "proper etiquette" in many country clubs, restaurants, and offices around our country ?
Do you really believe that people have the right to free speech in this country ?
Do you know what would happen if someone used the N word in the workplace ? They'd be fired. Do you know what would happen to someone in America if they were caught placing swastika's in their front yard ? Heck, in some cities, you can't even put up a Nativity scene because it is offensive.
You do realize that there is a lot of speech and actions that are deemed offensive, and are not allowed by governments in this country, like Nativity scenes at Christmas time ? What happened to that free speech, where the majority of Christians wanted a Nativity scene, but the town counsel said no because it was offensive ?
So local governments can say Nativity scenes are offensive, but they can't say burning the flag is offensive too ? Schools can instruct people NOT to say Merry Christmas, but instead say Happy Holidays, but those same schools can tell students NOT to dishonor the flag by sitting out the pledge of allegiance ? Sounds like a double standard ?
So you really believe there isn't government censorship in this country ? Think again.
You listed several examples of private institutions limiting free speech, and since those are irrelevant to the topic at hand I won't comment on those.
But you did bring up Nativity scenes being restricted by government entities, so I'll address that. And if that were strictly a matter of free speech, you'd have a valid point. But Nativity scenes were restricted despite the free speech clause because they were found to be in conflict with the freedom of religion clause. I won't get into the validity of the opinion because my opinion of it isn't relevant, but it was decided in that case that government involvement in Nativity scenes, even merely allowing public space to be used, was a violation of the separation of church and state principle that a prior court had invented. Nativity scenes on private land are always permitted, so the Court determined that restricting them on public land only was a reasonable resolution of what they determined were conflicting Constitutional rights. In many localities, the resolution, also permitted by SCOTUS, was to allow Nativity scenes provided adherents of any religion were also allowed to erect scenes/symbols/whatever in the same space. I don't know whether the word "offensive" ever arose in connection with these court cases, but I know SCOTUS didn't give it any weight or rely on it in their decision. Outlawing flag burning has no connection to any Constitutional provision other than freedom of speech, and could only be accomplished by creating an exception to the 1st amendment, and doing so solely because it was offensive, laying the ground for the tsunami of snowflakes seeking further exceptions.
If you see someone burn an American flag and you find it sufficiently offensive, you should beat the tar out of them, and then accept the legal consequences of your actions. THAT, I would respect. Asking Big Brother to impose your personal likes and dislikes on everyone else, not so much.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@DIMEMAN said:
Sure can......stuff that comes out of your mouth or put on paper!
OK, so if I wanted to dress up as (fill in politician here) and walk around the town square portraying him in an unflattering light, but not speaking, the government could prohibit that?
Is the American flag the only thing that the government could prohibit burning? How about Korans, police uniforms, reproductions of the Declaration of Independence, photos of flags, ......?
If I perform some sleight of hand and go through all of the motions of burning a flag, in the public square, and everyone who watches actually believes I burned an American flag because I said I was burning an American flag, but I didn't, could the government prohibit that?
I could go on ad infinitum with stuff like this, but my point is that I don't want the government deciding the answers to the millions of cases that would inundate them if we were ever to go down your path and declare the 1st amendment conditional on whether or not some group of people is offended (trust me, prohibiting flag burning would open the floodgates for other snowflakes who were offended by some other conduct). You can want flag burning prohibited or you can want less government control, but you can't want both. Banning flag burning would inevitably make us all subject to more government control than a free people could ever tolerate.
That has to be the biggest bunch of mumbo jumbo I have ever heard. It doesn't even deserve an answer.
Look no further than Massachusetts, they amended the 2A to fit the liberal agenda, they flat out made it illegal to buy an AR15, they said that gun is not protected under the 2A. They should be able to say burning of the flag or kneeling is NOT protected under 1A, so let’s not pretend that amendments are not interpreted differently from one agenda to another
That has to be the biggest bunch of mumbo jumbo I have ever heard. It doesn't even deserve an answer.
You ought to be embarrassed by that post. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt an assume you are, and stop directing serious posts on this topic at you.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1970s said:
Do people here know what year our supreme court gave people in this country the right to burn the flag ? Do people here know how many years in America it was ILLEGAL to do it ?
1989, but it doesn’t much matter how many years it was illegal to do so, does it? That’s completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Might as well ask when slavery was abolished, and how many years it was LEGAL to own another person.
Point being, it doesn’t matter when a law was made or overturned, or how long that law was or wasn’t in effect. What matters is what the law is now.
@dallasactuary freaking nails it in his last post. You’re either for free speech in its sordid entirety, or you’re for more government control of our lives. You can’t have it both ways. The instant we start picking and choosing what’s offensive and what’s not, Pandora’s Box flies open and will not close.
I, for one, am not down for authoritarian rule, which is where this, among other things, would lead us.
Nothing DA mentioned has a thing to do with Free Speech. I would try to explain what the FA is all about, but it would fall on deaf ears. I'm outa here......have a good one.
@perkdog said:
Great post 1970’s. Try this one on for size, how about burning a Quran or Muslim prayer rug on social media? The torches would be lit and the person would be led to the gallos lol. The only things that are not considered wrong are the things that fit the agenda of the liberal masses.
You bring the Quran's, and I'll bring the beers and marshmallows.
@1970s said:
Do people here know what year our supreme court gave people in this country the right to burn the flag ? Do people here know how many years in America it was ILLEGAL to do it ?
1989, but it doesn’t much matter how many years it was illegal to do so, does it? That’s completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Might as well ask when slavery was abolished, and how many years it was LEGAL to own another person.
Point being, it doesn’t matter when a law was made or overturned, or how long that law was or wasn’t in effect. What matters is what the law is now.
@dallasactuary freaking nails it in his last post. You’re either for free speech in its sordid entirety, or you’re for more government control of our lives. You can’t have it both ways. The instant we start picking and choosing what’s offensive and what’s not, Pandora’s Box flies open and will not close.
I, for one, am not down for authoritarian rule, which is where this, among other things, would lead us.
You DO realize that total free speech is a myth, correct ?
You do realize there is not FREE SPEECH in our private schools and public schools ?
You've heard of bullying, harassment, and hate speech in the work place ?
All of which are illegal, so not a free speech issue.
You have heard of "proper etiquette" in many country clubs, restaurants, and offices around our country ?
A private club has specific standards one agrees to before joining. One may break them, which isn’t illegal in the eyes of the law, but may result in loss of membership. Same with restaurants and offices. You may be asked to leave a restaurant and/or be barred from returning, and you might be fired from your office, but you won’t face legal repercussion.
Do you really believe that people have the right to free speech in this country ?
Yes, I do.
Do you know what would happen if someone used the N word in the workplace ? They'd be fired. Do you know what would happen to someone in America if they were caught placing swastika's in their front yard ? Heck, in some cities, you can't even put up a Nativity scene because it is offensive.
Being fired for being a racist ass in your workplace is a natural consequence. It is, however, not illegal to be a racist ass.
Many people would find a Swastika in someone’s front yard to be repulsive, while some would think it’s wonderful. It’s also Constitutionally-protected free speech.
Not being allowed to put up a Nativity scene as a private citizen? I'm sure that's not a thing. Can’t do it as a government agency, though, which I'm sure you know.
You do realize that there is a lot of speech and actions that are deemed offensive, and are not allowed by governments in this country, like Nativity scenes at Christmas time ? What happened to that free speech, where the majority of Christians wanted a Nativity scene, but the town counsel said no because it was offensive?
Again, you're talking about a city/county/state/federal owned facility, which legally cannot allow just a Nativity scene. @dallasactuary covered that quite well in his previous post.
So local governments can say Nativity scenes are offensive, but they can't say burning the flag is offensive too ? Schools can instruct people NOT to say Merry Christmas, but instead say Happy Holidays, but those same schools can tell students NOT to dishonor the flag by sitting out the pledge of allegiance ? Sounds like a double standard ?
Nope, keep trying to spin your partisan BS
So you really believe there isn't government censorship in this country ? Think again.
Nope, sure don't. The Constitution has been interpreted quite fairly. Keep trying.
That has to be the biggest bunch of mumbo jumbo I have ever heard. It doesn't even deserve an answer.
You ought to be embarrassed by that post. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt an assume you are, and stop directing serious posts on this topic at you.
Agreed. It's a bit disheartening to see someone post completely lucid, well-reasoned thoughts on actual Constitutional law and have it dismissed so cavalierly.
@1970s said:
Do people here know what year our supreme court gave people in this country the right to burn the flag ? Do people here know how many years in America it was ILLEGAL to do it ?
1989, but it doesn’t much matter how many years it was illegal to do so, does it? That’s completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Might as well ask when slavery was abolished, and how many years it was LEGAL to own another person.
Point being, it doesn’t matter when a law was made or overturned, or how long that law was or wasn’t in effect. What matters is what the law is now.
@dallasactuary freaking nails it in his last post. You’re either for free speech in its sordid entirety, or you’re for more government control of our lives. You can’t have it both ways. The instant we start picking and choosing what’s offensive and what’s not, Pandora’s Box flies open and will not close.
I, for one, am not down for authoritarian rule, which is where this, among other things, would lead us.
Nothing DA mentioned has a thing to do with Free Speech. I would try to explain what the FA is all about, but it would fall on deaf ears. I'm outa here......have a good one.
Jon, quite honestly you have zero idea what free speech actually is. It's clear what you want free speech to be, but thankfully you're not in a position to interpret our Constitution.
@perkdog said:
Great post 1970’s. Try this one on for size, how about burning a Quran or Muslim prayer rug on social media? The torches would be lit and the person would be led to the gallos lol. The only things that are not considered wrong are the things that fit the agenda of the liberal masses.
You bring the Quran's, and I'll bring the beers and marshmallows.
Simply disgusting. At least a couple of you equate a symbolic piece of cloth to a holy text that's sacred to over a billion people. I'm a person of faith, not a Muslim, but I would be outraged if I saw someone burning a Quran. That is beyond hateful, and I condemn in the strongest possible terms the idea of burning a Bible, Quran, Book of Mormon, or any other text considered holy by its adherents.
Too bad the snowflakes and anti-American wing of our country doesn't want a flag burning law. You know who they are, and you know which party they belong to.
Again, Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Majority Leader, is on the record since at least 2006 as opposing an amendment outlawing the burning of the flag. It was his vote in 2006 that was the difference on the amendment failing, and it is his prerogative to not have another anti-flag burning vote for as long as he is the Senate Majority Leader. Look it up.
@1970s said:
Too bad the snowflakes and anti-American wing of our country doesn't want a flag burning law. You know who they are, and you know which party they belong to.
I guarantee you that I am the most politically conservative member of this or any forum. If I could, I would eliminate every cabinet department, and every function they perform, not mentioned in the original Constitution. I would eliminate the income tax; I would not allow violent criminal offenders back into society, ever. I would not allow the federal government to have any input whatsoever in matters of health or education (except for the military academies); I would return the U.S. to a republic and the states to their status as independent states connected through a very weak federal government for only those purposes explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. The functions of the federal government could be financed, easily, by a nominal sales tax or VAT. Didn't save enough for retirement? That was stupid, you're probably going to die. Didn't buy yourself health insurance and can't afford the treatment you need? That was stupid, we'll miss you when you're gone.
.
And I would not allow the federal government to restrict "speech", as that word was understood by the Founding Fathers (educate yourself, perhaps by reading the Federalist Papers, I'm not going to do everything for you), in any way. Burning a flag is very obvioulsy a political statement, is in conflict with no over provision of the Constitution, and is very obviously covered by the 1st amendment.
Now, tell me which party I belong to.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1970s said:
Too bad the snowflakes and anti-American wing of our country doesn't want a flag burning law. You know who they are, and you know which party they belong to.
I guarantee you that I am the most politically conservative member of this or any forum. If I could, I would eliminate every cabinet department, and every function they perform, not mentioned in the original Constitution. I would eliminate the income tax; I would not allow violent criminal offenders back into society, ever. I would not allow the federal government to have any input whatsoever in matters of health or education (except for the military academies); I would return the U.S. to a republic and the states to their status as independent states connected through a very weak federal government for only those purposes explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. The functions of the federal government could be financed, easily, by a nominal sales tax or VAT. Didn't save enough for retirement? That was stupid, you're probably going to die. Didn't buy yourself health insurance and can't afford the treatment you need? That was stupid, we'll miss you when you're gone.
.
And I would not allow the federal government to restrict "speech", as that word was understood by the Founding Fathers (educate yourself, perhaps by reading the Federalist Papers, I'm not going to do everything for you), in any way. Burning a flag is very obvioulsy a political statement, is in conflict with no over provision of the Constitution, and is very obviously covered by the 1st amendment.
Now, tell me which party I belong to.
The comment about health insurance is cruel. I don't know what party you belong to, but it doesn't sound like you belong to the human race.
@1970s said:
Too bad the snowflakes and anti-American wing of our country doesn't want a flag burning law. You know who they are, and you know which party they belong to.
I guarantee you that I am the most politically conservative member of this or any forum. If I could, I would eliminate every cabinet department, and every function they perform, not mentioned in the original Constitution. I would eliminate the income tax; I would not allow violent criminal offenders back into society, ever. I would not allow the federal government to have any input whatsoever in matters of health or education (except for the military academies); I would return the U.S. to a republic and the states to their status as independent states connected through a very weak federal government for only those purposes explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. The functions of the federal government could be financed, easily, by a nominal sales tax or VAT. Didn't save enough for retirement? That was stupid, you're probably going to die. Didn't buy yourself health insurance and can't afford the treatment you need? That was stupid, we'll miss you when you're gone.
.
And I would not allow the federal government to restrict "speech", as that word was understood by the Founding Fathers (educate yourself, perhaps by reading the Federalist Papers, I'm not going to do everything for you), in any way. Burning a flag is very obvioulsy a political statement, is in conflict with no over provision of the Constitution, and is very obviously covered by the 1st amendment.
Now, tell me which party I belong to.
The comment about health insurance is cruel. I don't know what party you belong to, but it doesn't sound like you belong to the human race.
Correct. A rich country should provide safety nets for it's less effective citizens. It's called compassion.
@TNP777 - I didn't think anything could be said here that would get me to reply to this thread again. But you have done it.
You are OK with burning the American Flag the symbol of our country that thousands upon thousands have died for, but you say it would be wrong to burn the Quran!! You are DEAD to me!!! You care less about our Flag than the Bible of a group of people who fly airplanes into our buildings and kill thousands of Americans!!! And don't tell me how peace loving muslims are when their "Bible" teaches them to kill all infidels and guess who the infidels are........
I would tell you what I think of you and people who think like you, but Freedom of Speech is not allowed here!!!!!
Jon, if that’s what you’ve gotten out of everything I’ve said in this entire dumpster fire of a thread, I’ll add lack of reading comprehension to your lack of understanding of free speech.
Peace out. I’ll leave y’all to your angry echo chamber.
@TNP777 said:
Jon, if that’s what you’ve gotten out of everything I’ve said
Did you say burning the Quran is disgusting ? Yes
Did you say burning the flag is disgusting ? No
Did you say burning the flag is protected under the first amendment ? Yes
Did you say burning the Quran is protected under the first amendment ? No
Was your initial response to flag burning......."It is disgusting ?" No
Was your initial response to burning the Quran....."It is disgusting?" Yes
The easy answer to these questions are that your initial response to flag burning was that it is ok, and your initial response to Quran burning was it is sick and disgusting.
Your colors are shining bright and clear my friend. You have easily identified yourself. And everyone here now clearly sees it.
Did I say burning the Quran is disgusting ? Yes, I did, along with the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and any other Holy text.
Did I say burning the flag is disgusting? No, I didn’t, not in those specific terms. But if you’ve spent even an minute of time reading what’s I’ve said in this thread, I’ve been plain in saying that I personally find the practice of Flag burning distasteful. And I’ve made it even plainer that I’m far more interested in preserving the rights and freedoms of the people in this country than I am in screaming about the sanctity of a piece of cloth that symbolizes the rights and freedoms of the people in this country.
Did I say burning the flag is protected under the first amendment? Yes, I did.
Did I say burning the Quran is protected under the first amendment? No, I did not, so I’ll say it now. Burning the Quran, or any other Holy text, is protected under 1A.
Was my initial response to flag burning......."It is disgusting? No, I have never said it was disgusting. See above for my thoughts on the Flag vs the rights, freedoms and people the Flag symbolizes.
Was my initial response to burning the Quran....."It is disgusting?" Yes, I did. It absolutely is. “I’ll bring the beer and marshmallows” is disgusting. You hate over a billion people for the actions of their extremists. Do you hate Christians because of the acts of our extremists? Because we have them, too. No, we haven’t flown planes into buildings, but we have innocent blood on our hands, too.
The xenophobia in much of this group is astounding. The idolatry of much of this group is beyond troubling. Y’all elevate the Flag as some sort of holy object, which it was never meant to be.
@doubledragon said:
The comment about health insurance is cruel. I don't know what party you belong to, but it doesn't sound like you belong to the human race.
Correct. A rich country should provide safety nets for it's less effective citizens. It's called compassion.
And you and doubledragon are both perfectly entitled to that POV. But the point I wanted to make is that respect for free speech INcreases as one moves to the right on the political spectrum. Flag burning, for reasons that remain a mystery to me, appears to be the exception, where those on the right are eager to suppress free speech and those on the left find religion and decide the 1st amendment is a good thing after all.
And doubledragon, your POV that Americans did not join the human race until the 1960's, and that the human race did not exist anywhere in the world until the 20th century, is an interesting one, and one I had not heard before. I don't agree, but will fight to the death for your right to express such opinions.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
My point is simply this, if someone has cancer and doesn't have health insurance, you don't just turn them away and let them die, if you have a decent bone in your body.
@doubledragon said:
My point is simply this, if someone has cancer and doesn't have health insurance, you don't just turn them away and let them die, if you have a decent bone in your body.
Comments
Then ultimately your beef lies with the 5 Supreme Court justices who ruled that Flag-burning is Constitutional, not the Flag burners themselves. There is no loophole, Jon. There is only the Constitution as ruled on by the highest court in the land.
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
Everything. You say flag burners are using a loophole to burn the Flag. They're not. It's not mentioned anywhere in the 45 words that make up 1A. Tabe points to cat pictures on Facebook as another example of something that' s not specifically covered in 1A.
You keep talking about a loophole, Jon. but there simply isn't one.
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
That SCOUS was very Liberal and would be OK with anything. I have a beef with them and the dirtbags that use this misinterpatation of the 1A. It is TOTALLY insane to call Flag burning...SPEECH!!!
And futhermore the 1A is not a complete list of things you can do or not do. It is strickly covering speech and what you can say and print!
Jon, you must have missed my previous post on the makeup of the 5 justices that ruled in favor of the constitutionality of flat burning. 1 was a Nixon appointee (Harry Blackmun) and 2 others were Reagan appointees (Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
If kaepernick wants to protest, there are other ways of protesting without disrespecting the flag.
That is simply not true. 1A doesn’t just cover the spoken word. It covers violent video games, political cartoons, all manners of art, music, opinion pieces, books, and countless other ways American citizens express themselves.
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
Yes, there are. But would they have had the same impact(both positive and negative, depending on your point of view)? Obviously that’s unknowable, but I think it’s unlikely the needle would have even wiggled had he done something other than kneel - which action was suggested by an ex-Green Beret, btw.
As always, I’m more concerned and interested in the substance of Kaepernick’s protest than I am with how he protested. I know most here are equally disgusted by both the substance and the manner of his protest.
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
Interesting wiki entry in exceptions to free speech. There are countless rabbit holes to dive into as to what constitutes free speech. To me, one of the most disgusting is Snyder v Phelps, which saw SCOTUS rule in favor, 8-1, of the repugnant Westboro Baptist Church (the GOD HATES (everyone) church).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
I'll ask again - what are you using as your definition of "speech"?
My beef is with SCJ as well as the scumbags that do the burning, they are both equally bad in my opinion. > @TNP777 said:
Geordie, I am under the impression that outstide LE it is actually difficult to fire someone without just cause or with reasonable cause. I have many friends in the private sector non union shops that are always complaining that it is in fact difficult to fire someone, I’m not saying your right or wrong but if a person in the workplace wants to use offensive words but not against anyone then he is probably free to do so? Again I do t know all that much how the private sector goes. Aside from that it is absolutely obvious that the 2A has been amended several times and is not considered cut and dry so why shouldn’t they do the same for 1A regarding flag burning? And I want to ask you ( without picking a fight mind you ) is your issue with people like me who hate flag burners and kneelers because it’s NOT illegal? Are you ok with it since it’s legal? If it became illegal would you change your stance?
Not sure why your so bent on him explaining it, it’s obvious he is looking at the flag burning as a physical act not a verbal one.
Paul, rather than me explaining it and muddying it up beyond all recognition, I'll point you here. It basically says this, though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
I have no issue as it concerns those who are against flag burners, whatever their reasons (seen as unpatriotic, disrespectful, mad because it's not against the law). Your right to free speech extends to being upset with burning or otherwise protesting the Flag.
My stance should protest against the Flag become illegal? That's a good question, actually. Do I like the Flag being burned in protest? No, I do not. Not even a little bit. But I do fear the slippery slope if it becomes illegal. When we legislate what forms of protest are acceptable (non-violent ones, of course), then it's only a matter of time before other forms of protest are deemed unacceptable, and then we're well on the way to authoritarian rule. I would hope none of us want that.
As I have been clear about before, I do not personally find Kaepernick's kneeling during the Anthem to be offensive, but understand and accept that others do.
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
I answered you once....look it up.
The Senate attempted to pass a bill outlawing flag burning in 2006. It failed by one vote. One of the senators voting no was Mitch McConnell. He stated his reasons at the time, and has repeated them over the years. As long as Ol' Mitch is Senate Majority Leader, you can count on any new attempt to outlaw flag burning as likely never seeing the floor for a vote.
My apologies. You did.
So, based on your definition, sign language is not speech.
The point is that speech comes in many forms - verbal being just one of them.
Yea I’m well aware, I wasn’t the one who is confused by this.
OK, so if I wanted to dress up as (fill in politician here) and walk around the town square portraying him in an unflattering light, but not speaking, the government could prohibit that?
Is the American flag the only thing that the government could prohibit burning? How about Korans, police uniforms, reproductions of the Declaration of Independence, photos of flags, ......?
If I perform some sleight of hand and go through all of the motions of burning a flag, in the public square, and everyone who watches actually believes I burned an American flag because I said I was burning an American flag, but I didn't, could the government prohibit that?
I could go on ad infinitum with stuff like this, but my point is that I don't want the government deciding the answers to the millions of cases that would inundate them if we were ever to go down your path and declare the 1st amendment conditional on whether or not some group of people is offended (trust me, prohibiting flag burning would open the floodgates for other snowflakes who were offended by some other conduct). You can want flag burning prohibited or you can want less government control, but you can't want both. Banning flag burning would inevitably make us all subject to more government control than a free people could ever tolerate.
Same here, that should be a plaque posted next to every Nike Ad
1989, but it doesn’t much matter how many years it was illegal to do so, does it? That’s completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Might as well ask when slavery was abolished, and how many years it was LEGAL to own another person.
Point being, it doesn’t matter when a law was made or overturned, or how long that law was or wasn’t in effect. What matters is what the law is now.
@dallasactuary freaking nails it in his last post. You’re either for free speech in its sordid entirety, or you’re for more government control of our lives. You can’t have it both ways. The instant we start picking and choosing what’s offensive and what’s not, Pandora’s Box flies open and will not close.
I, for one, am not down for authoritarian rule, which is where this, among other things, would lead us.
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
Great post 1970’s. Try this one on for size, how about burning a Quran or Muslim prayer rug on social media? The torches would be lit and the person would be led to the gallos lol. The only things that are not considered wrong are the things that fit the agenda of the liberal masses.
You listed several examples of private institutions limiting free speech, and since those are irrelevant to the topic at hand I won't comment on those.
But you did bring up Nativity scenes being restricted by government entities, so I'll address that. And if that were strictly a matter of free speech, you'd have a valid point. But Nativity scenes were restricted despite the free speech clause because they were found to be in conflict with the freedom of religion clause. I won't get into the validity of the opinion because my opinion of it isn't relevant, but it was decided in that case that government involvement in Nativity scenes, even merely allowing public space to be used, was a violation of the separation of church and state principle that a prior court had invented. Nativity scenes on private land are always permitted, so the Court determined that restricting them on public land only was a reasonable resolution of what they determined were conflicting Constitutional rights. In many localities, the resolution, also permitted by SCOTUS, was to allow Nativity scenes provided adherents of any religion were also allowed to erect scenes/symbols/whatever in the same space. I don't know whether the word "offensive" ever arose in connection with these court cases, but I know SCOTUS didn't give it any weight or rely on it in their decision. Outlawing flag burning has no connection to any Constitutional provision other than freedom of speech, and could only be accomplished by creating an exception to the 1st amendment, and doing so solely because it was offensive, laying the ground for the tsunami of snowflakes seeking further exceptions.
If you see someone burn an American flag and you find it sufficiently offensive, you should beat the tar out of them, and then accept the legal consequences of your actions. THAT, I would respect. Asking Big Brother to impose your personal likes and dislikes on everyone else, not so much.
That has to be the biggest bunch of mumbo jumbo I have ever heard. It doesn't even deserve an answer.
Look no further than Massachusetts, they amended the 2A to fit the liberal agenda, they flat out made it illegal to buy an AR15, they said that gun is not protected under the 2A. They should be able to say burning of the flag or kneeling is NOT protected under 1A, so let’s not pretend that amendments are not interpreted differently from one agenda to another
You ought to be embarrassed by that post. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt an assume you are, and stop directing serious posts on this topic at you.
Nothing DA mentioned has a thing to do with Free Speech. I would try to explain what the FA is all about, but it would fall on deaf ears. I'm outa here......have a good one.
👍🍻🇺🇸
All of which are illegal, so not a free speech issue.
A private club has specific standards one agrees to before joining. One may break them, which isn’t illegal in the eyes of the law, but may result in loss of membership. Same with restaurants and offices. You may be asked to leave a restaurant and/or be barred from returning, and you might be fired from your office, but you won’t face legal repercussion.
Yes, I do.
Being fired for being a racist ass in your workplace is a natural consequence. It is, however, not illegal to be a racist ass.
Many people would find a Swastika in someone’s front yard to be repulsive, while some would think it’s wonderful. It’s also Constitutionally-protected free speech.
Not being allowed to put up a Nativity scene as a private citizen? I'm sure that's not a thing. Can’t do it as a government agency, though, which I'm sure you know.
Again, you're talking about a city/county/state/federal owned facility, which legally cannot allow just a Nativity scene. @dallasactuary covered that quite well in his previous post.
Nope, keep trying to spin your partisan BS
Nope, sure don't. The Constitution has been interpreted quite fairly. Keep trying.
Agreed. It's a bit disheartening to see someone post completely lucid, well-reasoned thoughts on actual Constitutional law and have it dismissed so cavalierly.
Jon, quite honestly you have zero idea what free speech actually is. It's clear what you want free speech to be, but thankfully you're not in a position to interpret our Constitution.
Simply disgusting. At least a couple of you equate a symbolic piece of cloth to a holy text that's sacred to over a billion people. I'm a person of faith, not a Muslim, but I would be outraged if I saw someone burning a Quran. That is beyond hateful, and I condemn in the strongest possible terms the idea of burning a Bible, Quran, Book of Mormon, or any other text considered holy by its adherents.
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
Again, Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Majority Leader, is on the record since at least 2006 as opposing an amendment outlawing the burning of the flag. It was his vote in 2006 that was the difference on the amendment failing, and it is his prerogative to not have another anti-flag burning vote for as long as he is the Senate Majority Leader. Look it up.
I guarantee you that I am the most politically conservative member of this or any forum. If I could, I would eliminate every cabinet department, and every function they perform, not mentioned in the original Constitution. I would eliminate the income tax; I would not allow violent criminal offenders back into society, ever. I would not allow the federal government to have any input whatsoever in matters of health or education (except for the military academies); I would return the U.S. to a republic and the states to their status as independent states connected through a very weak federal government for only those purposes explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. The functions of the federal government could be financed, easily, by a nominal sales tax or VAT. Didn't save enough for retirement? That was stupid, you're probably going to die. Didn't buy yourself health insurance and can't afford the treatment you need? That was stupid, we'll miss you when you're gone.
.
And I would not allow the federal government to restrict "speech", as that word was understood by the Founding Fathers (educate yourself, perhaps by reading the Federalist Papers, I'm not going to do everything for you), in any way. Burning a flag is very obvioulsy a political statement, is in conflict with no over provision of the Constitution, and is very obviously covered by the 1st amendment.
Now, tell me which party I belong to.
The comment about health insurance is cruel. I don't know what party you belong to, but it doesn't sound like you belong to the human race.
You forgot the less effective illegal aliens.
@TNP777 - I didn't think anything could be said here that would get me to reply to this thread again. But you have done it.
You are OK with burning the American Flag the symbol of our country that thousands upon thousands have died for, but you say it would be wrong to burn the Quran!! You are DEAD to me!!! You care less about our Flag than the Bible of a group of people who fly airplanes into our buildings and kill thousands of Americans!!! And don't tell me how peace loving muslims are when their "Bible" teaches them to kill all infidels and guess who the infidels are........
I would tell you what I think of you and people who think like you, but Freedom of Speech is not allowed here!!!!!
Good Bye !!!
Jon, if that’s what you’ve gotten out of everything I’ve said in this entire dumpster fire of a thread, I’ll add lack of reading comprehension to your lack of understanding of free speech.
Peace out. I’ll leave y’all to your angry echo chamber.
Nets are coming.
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
Did I say burning the Quran is disgusting ? Yes, I did, along with the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and any other Holy text.
Did I say burning the flag is disgusting? No, I didn’t, not in those specific terms. But if you’ve spent even an minute of time reading what’s I’ve said in this thread, I’ve been plain in saying that I personally find the practice of Flag burning distasteful. And I’ve made it even plainer that I’m far more interested in preserving the rights and freedoms of the people in this country than I am in screaming about the sanctity of a piece of cloth that symbolizes the rights and freedoms of the people in this country.
Did I say burning the flag is protected under the first amendment? Yes, I did.
Did I say burning the Quran is protected under the first amendment? No, I did not, so I’ll say it now. Burning the Quran, or any other Holy text, is protected under 1A.
Was my initial response to flag burning......."It is disgusting? No, I have never said it was disgusting. See above for my thoughts on the Flag vs the rights, freedoms and people the Flag symbolizes.
Was my initial response to burning the Quran....."It is disgusting?" Yes, I did. It absolutely is. “I’ll bring the beer and marshmallows” is disgusting. You hate over a billion people for the actions of their extremists. Do you hate Christians because of the acts of our extremists? Because we have them, too. No, we haven’t flown planes into buildings, but we have innocent blood on our hands, too.
The xenophobia in much of this group is astounding. The idolatry of much of this group is beyond troubling. Y’all elevate the Flag as some sort of holy object, which it was never meant to be.
‘Murica
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
This thread is unbelievable. It needs a hot dog vendor.
And you and doubledragon are both perfectly entitled to that POV. But the point I wanted to make is that respect for free speech INcreases as one moves to the right on the political spectrum. Flag burning, for reasons that remain a mystery to me, appears to be the exception, where those on the right are eager to suppress free speech and those on the left find religion and decide the 1st amendment is a good thing after all.
And doubledragon, your POV that Americans did not join the human race until the 1960's, and that the human race did not exist anywhere in the world until the 20th century, is an interesting one, and one I had not heard before. I don't agree, but will fight to the death for your right to express such opinions.
My point is simply this, if someone has cancer and doesn't have health insurance, you don't just turn them away and let them die, if you have a decent bone in your body.
Hoo boy.