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 ...
Read my post 19 for your answer. Go read
“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.”
Ummm...that’s not how our system works.
The Supreme Court is not empowered to “approve” laws, or to make them.
“Actually, many Supreme Courts over time have basically said as long as your speech does not immediately cause someone else to act in an unlawful way”
Nope. No good. You’re still assuming that flag burning is speech.
Flag burning is not speech. It is that which has been wrongly decided.
Not under your interpretation, as flying a flag is not written or spoken speech.
I’m just saying that acts that are not actual spoken or written speech should not have 1A protection.
Exactly. So President Chelsea Clinton will be able to sign a bill outlawing flying my flag on the porch.
How is flying a flag any different from burning a flag, as it relates to speech?
There is no difference in my mind. Both are protected free speech.
It’s not a simple Left Right issue. Scalia and Stevens both voted the opposite that you might’ve expected if it were.
Oddly, until this morning when I read up on it, I thought it was Thurgood Marshall, not Stevens who voted with the dissent. I remember reading a quote from him in the paper around the time it was decided. It could be it was one of those personally it’s despicable but the Constitution yada yada ... I don’t know.
Then we disagree. So in my town you would support the soft headed city attorney who refuses to prosecute aggressive panhandlers because he maintains it’s protected speech. See where this goes?
Yes but it’s something that come be altered with an amendment, which was been tried a couple times and failed, but could be tried again.
Ok then, please ping me when Congress passes a law, and the president signs a law that makes it illegal to burn an American flag and specifies “loss of citizenship” as the punishment for a violation of the law.
And when the law is challenged at the Supreme Court and the Court upholds that law, ping me twice.
How exactly do we disagree? You said the First Amendment should only be for the written or spoken word, not expressive actions.
Flying my American flag involves no spoken or written words.
your example is easy to explain. Aggressive panhandling is not a behavior. It is a label of conclusion. If you mean, for example, stepping in front of you and prohibiting your progress or yelling in your face or ear, or putting a hand on you or using you, those are examples of assault and should be actionable by the police because they interfere with your freedom of movement if they disturb the peace around your body by the close yelling.
If someone burns a flag and you are offended (as we all would be) there is no freedom from offense. unless you are wrapped in the flag or handed a burning flag, you are not physically impeded or harmed, as you are in the example of the aggressive beggar. The burner has the right to political protest.
Stand by.
You believe an overt physical act, not just actual spoken or written words, should be protected by 1A. At least, that’s my understanding of your comment. I believe that only actual spoken or written words should be protected, not overt physical acts seeking protection under the false pretense of “speech.”
“Your opinion.”
Yes, because I’m the only man in America who holds that opinion. It is mine. Just mine.
“Many things other than actual speech have been classified as political speech, for instance the Citizens United case. So I guess you’re not a hypocrite and are against that along with all of the other left wing loonies like Jill Stein, correct?”
Don’t be silly. One thing can be speech and another thing not speech.
Spending on campaign advertising is spending on speech, and therefore protected. Burning the flag is not speech, and therefore not protected.
It’s really not that hard, once you realize that the left is lying when they classify live homosexual acts on stage and flag burning as speech.
OK - now I get what you meant by "disagreement".
So, you do agree that someone flying an American flag on their front porch should receive no First Amendment protection, correct?
As well as paintings, photographs & other art, the wearing of certain colors (analogous to wearing orange in the Ukraine), black arm bands, marching, etc, etc - none of that is protected, either?
excuse me, I meant to say the only the things the amendments do is restrict the government and recognize inherent rights of the people (except the 22nd).....
“Problem is that a lot of legal scholars hold a differing opinion.”
That’s not a problem. My position is based on the opinions of the legal scholars who are correct.
“The facts and legal scholarship on this are against you.”
Nonsense. It is only the left that pushes this lunacy.
Conservative legal scholars and actual facts, as opposed to invented, leftard crapola, are against your position.
Why do you side with the left?
Yours is not a popular position here on FR. But I am with you 100% and not afraid to say so.
Do I support flag burning? Absolutely not! (Except as the correct ceremonial method of disposing of a damaged flag.)
Free speech is far, far, far more important than any symbol. When we restrict speech that we don’t like, we open the door for liberal control freaks to limit speech that they don’t like - which would be just about anything we say that disagrees with them. Let them have their tantrums and burn the flag but keep our speech free.
So how do we deal with flag burning? We deal with it as individuals, not with law. We should either mock or ignore those who do this. They do it for attention and to shock and upset us and if we ignore them we deprive them of the attention and the reaction they crave. If we mock them, we give them a different reaction that they do not want.
Another great reaction from us would be to stand and salute and show our patriotism while they burn the flag. This would be especially effective in showing how many of us respect the flag (a BIG crowd saluting) vs. the tiny group who want to desecrate it. It would be effective regardless of the numbers. Picture one lone veteran in a wheelchair saluting and behaving with dignity as a mob behaves with childish tantrums.
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.