Posted on 11/29/2016 9:38:37 AM PST by mandaladon
While president-elect Donald Trump has taken flack from civil libertarians for his sudden resurrection of the flag-burning issue, it’s worth noting that his former general election opponent Hillary Clinton once came under fire from liberal allies for sponsoring a bill that aimed to throw those who burned the flag in prison.
Clinton’s stance on flag-burning is complicated to say the least. In theory, she has consistently opposed a flag-burning amendment, and voted against it when it came up for a vote in 2006. But a year earlier, she sponsored a bill that was widely seen as a runaround the Supreme Court precedent outlawing the desecration of flags.
The Flag Protection Act of 2005 would have banned “destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace,” punishable with a year in prison. In theory, that was different from previous flag-burning bills, which banned all flag burning. In support for the bill, Clinton cited the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Virginia v. Black, which found that bans on cross-burning were unconstitutional, but constitutional when limited to incitement and threats of violence.
Clinton’s bill earned her a rare rebuke from the editorial page of The New York Times. “Senator Clinton In Pander Mode,” declared The Times, arguing that the logic behind the bill’s constitutionality was flimsy. “A black American who wakes up to see a cross burning on the front lawn has every right to feel personally, and physically, threatened. Flag-burning has no such history. It has, in fact, no history of being directed against any target but the government,” they noted.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
I’m against this and I’m against the long standing American Legion stance of a constitutional amendment against desecrating the flag. This is all IMO political speech which is covered by the first amendment.
The First amendment is not there to protect speech we all or even most of us agree with. It’s there to protect the most vile of political speech. In Germany, you can be jailed for (and people have been) promoting Nazi ideology. I never want to see our country get to that point.
Everyone who believes Big Government should dictate what is and what is not acceptable peaceful political protest?
Many forms of “speech” are condemned. Desecrating our flag should be one more.
If you have got to the point that burning the flag is a logical part of your political speech, then going to jail simply adds emphasis to your statement.
I’m OK with modest jail-time for burning the flag especially when its in combination with a riot.
“This is all IMO political speech which is covered by the first amendment.”
This is not political speech. This is an act of hatred for America. The flag burners and desecrators contribute nothing to society. They hate America and are trying to destroy it. They are supported by the taxpayers of America and they will do anything to hurt them.
It is the height of stupidity to protect and subsidize those whose goal is to destroy your family and your way of life.
She wasn’t calling for stripping someone of their citizenship. Which the government can’t do to natural-born citizens.
The Supreme Court has already answered this question.
You mean who actually sponsored legislation.....
Here’s my view on “speech”: If it isn’t a spoken or written word it isn’t protected by 1A, SCOTUS notwithstanding. Overt physical acts, like burning flags, aggressive panhandling, etc., are not speech and therefore are not protected.
Next case!
“The Supreme Court has already answered this question.”
Yes, wrongly. We need to get it right.
“Not political speech.”
It’s not speech. Not speech. Not speech. Not speech.
The representatives of the forces of evil on the (then) supreme court decided the way they did for the purpose of forwarding the degradation of American society.
The matter was wrongly decided by America’s enemies as an attack on America.
Ok then.
Please ping me when the Supreme Court approves a federal law that dictates that Americans will lose their US citizenship if they burn an American flag.
So flying the American flag on my porch can be outlawed and receive no First Amendment protection, under your interpretation?
Try advocating the overthrow of the government; shooting a specific politician; telling a Marine to desert etc. Go read.
You could always challenge any law that prohibited that. I’m just saying that acts that are not actual spoken or written speech should not have 1A protection. How is flying a flag any different from burning a flag, as it relates to speech?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.