Anyone who burns American flag should be jailed or lose citizenship

Someone else just pointed out that he wants to use the force of law to back up political correctness, which is true and hilarious.

 

Anyone who burns the American Flag, etc. and what not
Please Listen and read the words too.
AND You must translate "Southern" to "State".
[video=youtube;pukKZIlTEDo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pukKZIlTEDo[/video]
With the violations of the 4th and "mass data collecting"
I took down my flag of the Federals and fly the Bonnie Blue Flag That Bares A Single Star.
Within the Federal's Flag is a field of blue and a single star for each State.
The 10th Amendment reserves rights for the States the Federals routinely ignore.
If the Federals stayed out of the business of the States, they might have the energy to protect our borders.

The Greatest State of California did a better job at indigent medical care before MediCaid. We had MediCal.
We did a better job at education before the Federal's core curriculum. I support http://www.yescalifornia.org/ In the Spring of 2019, Californians will go to the polls in a historic vote to decide by referendum if California should exit the Union, a #Calexit vote.

And should I decide to burn the flag of the Federals in support of Calexit, that is my right.
And just another "right" the Federals trample with pseudolegality ignoring the Constitution.

Moi
Californian


r > g

View attachment 46994
Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

I agree with that. The first amendment is actually really dangerous. I think we should really have some limits on that (within reason). Like, we all know that you can get in trouble for saying bomb on a plane or fire in a theatre, but I think during a time of war, (LIKE NOW, which a lot of people don't actually realize), saying or doing treasonous things like flag burning and such is actually really bad. It's ok to not agree, but when that disagreement runs the risk of costing lives, that's where we have a problem. The Sedition Act of (1917 I think?) during the First World War really should hold true today as well.

 

All these things have been ruled to be freedom of speech by the S.C.

I'm not at all surprised to see the right calling for laws that ignore or violate the Constitution.

 

↑ This is disturbing. ↑

 

On the one hand, you do make a good point that there have to be limits because rights can come into conflict with each other. Yelling fire in a theater puts other people's lives at risk. However, burning a flag is not that kind of thing. It's not treasonous in the sense of helping the enemy or putting lives at risk. Therefore, it is not the kind of thing that rises to the level of infringing upon other rights, and therefore the default should be freedom to do it. People do NOT have the right to never be offended. One would think right wingers would have learned to agree with this for all the complaining they do of the left's sensitivities. Really an issue closer to the line on free speech is the "fighting words" exception, and I suppose in a way flag burning is similar to it. Fighting words is where your right to speech is limited when it can be reasonably expected to cause somebody to lose their cool and cause violence. In my view, there should be no such thing as a fighting words exception. People have the responsibility to control themselves when somebody says something offensive, because the right to speech is greater this sense that there is a right to never be offended.

 

It would be on exceeding his authority, and yeah, it would still be unconstitutional were he to try it.

 

We should burn flags in front of Trump Tower to show him that our freedom of speech, our freedom of expression, will NOT be taken away from us. We need to burn as many flags as possible (just like drawing as many Mohammad cartoons as possible) until the repressors of freedom finally get the message that we will not give up our hard-fought freedoms. America, like the Qur'an/Mohammad/Allah, is not above criticism! We're no better than that scumbag Fidel if we don't allow freedom of expression in the form of flag burning.

 

I agree. <Rule 6> Sometimes the Constitution can be hard to abide by... but, I still wouldn't have it any other way.

 

Yeah, I guess you're right.

 

Not surprising. Another constitutional hating RWer. Forget the 1st amendment.

OT - but I will go out on a limb and say you think money is free speech. Yet, flag burning free speech you want to kill em.

 

See I would beg to differ. The fact that you burned the US flag makes the country lose morale. A country that doesn't support its government cannot expect to win a war. Take Vietnam for example, the one US war that we potentially lost (still ambiguous). Citizens who don't support the government in a time of war make the country lose faith and thus make our army less strong.

 

Money is free speech? WTF does that even mean? Seriously, wtf?

And for the record I don't need the flag burners to die necessarily, I'd be happy to see them deported.

Imagine the look of horror on their faces when they try that kind of (*)(*)(*)(*) in a country that doesn't tolerate much in the way of free speech. Haa Haa!

 

Doesn't matter if you want them to die or deported. It still subverts the 1st amendment. Typical RW BS. For the constitution until they don't like the folks exercising their constitutional rights.

We'll put it into our memory banks, you aren't really for the constitution.

As for the money part, if you didn't get it, you didn't get it. It's related to campaign donors, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

A citizen that follows the gov't lock step, becomes like a dictatorship.
If the country goes to a war that the people don't want, they don't belong going. IE, Iraq, Viet Nam. We don't need to go to war for corporations or oil control, or nation building.
I means WTF - war to nation build. Stupid.

 

I personally could never burn a flag and look with complete disgust at those who do, but I would not support making it illegal.

 

Only one flag is described in US code, and it's not this one.



The Union Jack was viewed as treason to fly on a ship in the civil war.

It is the flag of the infiltration of our government and integrates us into the British empire. No one can see it replaced with the flag that is described in US code in a court room. Courts are not providing justice but they are violating constitutional rights.

With regard to those facts, these young people are doing the right thing in the Oakland city hall.

 

So what do you think Hillary's reason for Cosponsoring a more draconian bill 11 years ago?

 

We lead by example, the same way we protested in 2008 and 2012 is the way you're supposed to protest, not setting (*)(*)(*)(*) on fire. And assaulting people? Seriously?

First Amendment my ass, what you are doing is engaging in willful property damage and aggravated assault on people due to political differences. One day you will pick the wrong one to (*)(*)(*)(*) with.

 

What about attributing to "Flag Burning" the same recourse afforded to "Fighting Words"? I'd be ok with that.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words

"Words which would likely make the person whom they are addressed commit an act of violence. Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)."

 

Trump's motivation behind that tweet is a mystery to me. Clearly, he either doesn't understand the implications of what he has suggested, or there is some tactical play involved.

As to the question in the last sentence of your OP: Burning the flag is a repulsive, abhorrent behavior carried out by despicable individuals. That said, the act of burning the flag is done so as to elicit a response from people who hold our flag as sacred, and will be offended. In essence, flag burners are the real world's equivalent to internet trolls. They do so to attract attention to themselves and/or their causes. Same as internet trolls, if we and the media ignore them, they will go away. Unfortunately, the media's not going to ignore them.

Anyone who supports the jailing of US citizens for the symbolic act of flag burning, is desecrating what our flag stands for far more than the flag burner himself is. If, on the other hand, he creates a hazard, violates burning ordinances, injures someone other than himself, or destroys anyone's property other than his own, then he should be prosecuted. Otherwise, he should be ignored.

 

1. It wasn' t "more draconian."

2. Do you know why it died in committee?

3. Who was in charge of Congress at the time?4

4. What happened the following year?

 

I wouldn't even support that.......

 

Unfortunate. I think Trump will like it just fine, think I'll email him and let him know of my swell idea.

 

It isn't a horrible idea. I just err on the side of idiots being free to be idiots. Burning a flag tells me everything I would ever need to know about you.

 

Yes it was more draconian, up to 100k fine and a year in jail. The only real penalty with loss of citizenship is the right to vote which one suspects most of yahoos burning the flag have never exercised anyway.