Guess Who Else Supported Jail Time For Burning the Flag?

Mediaite ^ | 29 Nov 2016 | Alex Griswold

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Yours is not a popular position here on FR. But I am with you 100% and not afraid to say so."

Yes, and I don't understand why. People on here overall would be classified as classical liberals. Along that vein, these type of people are wary of any governmental restrictions on them. So how can they be for a governmental organization restricting someone's right to political speech and demonstration?

BTW, I like some of your ideas on how to combat the lefty loonies who burn flags.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Conservative legal scholars and actual facts, as opposed to invented, leftard crapola, are against your position."

Would Justice Scalia be one of those conservative legal scholars you cite? He voted to uphold flag burning in the Texas v. Johnson case. In fact, here's a quote from him which I wholeheartedly love and agree with:

"If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag, but I am not king."

[gdani]

Conservative legal scholars and actual facts, as opposed to invented, leftard crapola, are against your position.

I hope you're not counting Scalia among those legal scholars. He agreed it is free speech. Not even a close call.

And you still haven't answered -- is my flying my American flag on my front porch protected by the First Amendment or not?

[clintonh8r]

I’m for unrestricted campaign contributions but not as a matter of “speech.”

[clintonh8r]

Should every kind of expression be protected as speech? If so, who gets to define expression?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"I’m for unrestricted campaign contributions but not as a matter of “speech."

Read the decision, they ruled it is protected first amendment speech.

[clintonh8r]

Uh, I realize that. Am I compelled to agree with it? Is SCOTUS infallible?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Is SCOTUS infallible?"

No, but neither are you. Your basic reasoning is I don' agree with it and many people on here are responding to you with more than just opinion. That's what I'm doing. The fact is, there have been many things that have been labelled free speech (in the political sense) and the courts have pretty consistently said that if it's in the context of political speech/expression and does not directly lead to illegal acts than it is covered by the first amendment and no, you being offended and starting a fight would not be covered. You have no right to not being offended.

[gdani]

Should every kind of expression be protected as speech? If so, who gets to define expression?

If you answer my question first, I'll be happy to answer yours. Should the First Amendment protect my flying of an American flag on my porch?

[clintonh8r]

SCOTUS says abortion is ok too. I also disagree with that. I don’t think the founders would have agreed with it, and I don’t think they would have agreed with most of the things that are now considered “speech” as being protected by the 1A. And yes, I know I’m at odds even with Scalia.

Here’s a hypothetical: if you were at a demonstration where somebody was in a fight over his burning of the American flag would you physically intervene for the burner, for the beater or stay out of it?

Anyway, we’re having a circular argument now, neither of us is going to be convinced, and I’m perfectly happy being in the minority on this.

So...Semper fi!

[dsc]

“I hope you’re not counting Scalia among those legal scholars.”

I don’t know why Scalia sided with the forces of evil and voted wrongly on Texas v. Johnson, any more than I know why Roberts sided with the forces of evil and voted wrongly on Obamacare. Nobody’s perfect.

As you are, apparently, impervious to reason, I’m out.

[mmichaels1970]

Great post. Thanks.

[discostu]

It’s actually not a complicated issue at all. It’s political speech, it’s directly what the 1st is for. Yes it’s the type of political speech only @#$%&&*s use, but there’s no @#$%&&* exception in the 1st.

[depressed in 06]

I believe in you going to jail for burning someone else’s flag.

[Jacquerie]

Agree. Incitement to riot isn’t free speech.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The constitutional authors chose to let it be this free, because they believed in the power of reasoned public discourse. I.e. they were old fashioned liberals.

They didn’t foresee the rabid modern illiberal “liberal” who would try to steep the entire country in the verbal equivalent of firebombs.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"SCOTUS says abortion is ok too."

Just one last thing on this whole flag burning issue. Abortion is a poor example. The SCOTUS made up a right (The right to privacy) out of whole cloth. No where in the constitution or amendments can you find a right to privacy. It is hotly debated to this day and many conservative legal scholars believe it is unconstitutional. There are even some liberal scholars who will tell you it was wrongly decided.

Contrast that with flag burning. They took an existing right (free speech) and applied this political expression to free (political) speech. It has been accepted by the vast majority of both conservative and legal scholars and if it were brought before the court today, most legal minds believe it would still be upheld and possibly by a wider margin than originally done.

If you watched the news last night (I flipped between CNN, MSNBC, FOX & FOX Business) you would have saw numerous conservative and liberal pundits all saying that Flag burning is protected under the constitution. I didn't see one pundit say it's not. It's settled law. Roe vs. Wade is not settled law. There isn't thousands of demonstrators protesting against flag burning on it's anniversary court decision, there is with Roe vs. Wade.

[KeyLargo]

[discostu]

But their maxim is still the same: the solution to bad speech is good speech, not less speech. Once we start limiting political discourse, even the most asinine kind, we’ve let a very bad camel nose into the tent.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I’m hoping this is the ultimate point. Scott Adams has also intimated such a thing. These outrageous proposals are part of Trump’s “art of the deal.” They get the other party thinking about generic issues.