H/T weaselzippers
Posted on 11/29/2016 1:03:45 PM PST by Innovative
Donald Trump would appear to have done something very controversial (again) on Twitter Tuesday morning, registering his support for making flag-burning a crime punishable by as much as a year in jail or even the revoking of one's citizenship.
As our Philip Bump notes, it's not the first time Trump has pitted himself against things that have been defined by the Supreme Court as First Amendment rights — nor will it likely be the last. And as Bump also notes, Trump's decision to stand against flag-burning is likely to pit defenders of the practice “against the patriotism of people who find flag-burning unacceptable.”
But the size of that latter group might be bigger than the coverage of this topic suggests. And Trump's position probably won't strike most Americans as being all that controversial.
In fact, making flag-burning illegal appears to have had overwhelming public support as recently as a decade ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Flag burning should be legal. Beating the crap out of a person burning the American flag should be punishable by a fine not to exceed $25.
It is deeper than a lack of respect for a country. It is threatening the country.
I don't see how the country is being threatened.
Besides burning the flag, what other acts regarding the flag should be made illegal? Flipping the middle finger at it? Would that also be threatening the country?
What should be done with organizations that openly advocate burning the flag... like the VFW does on their website?
Lol, what nonsense. Flag burning is not speech, but a childish and emotional hissy fit engaged in by people who express themselves through emotional outbursts and attention whore stunts.
Real free speech involves some thought and expression that can at least be heard and interpreted by whomever the protest is supposedly directed toward.
But at least you got in your silly Nazi reference in an impressive imitation of the American left.
If the burning of the US Flag in a public place is a right protected by the courts, then one should be able to burn a Mexican Flag, Cuban Flag, Rainbow Flag or any other flag at the same public place. Or am I just mixed up about this “right”?
It's tempting to think that way. In reality, it should be punished the same as somebody that beats the crap out of somebody else yelling "Lock her up!".
There is no right in the US not to be offended.
Don’t need an amendment—just stack the USSC in your favor. How’s that for “Constitutional”.
But somehow, burning some of these flags will be deemed hate crimes.
Donald the Deal Maker may be trying to raise this point indirectly. If we agree to call even torching the stars and stripes a free speech, then the same goes for torching a gay flag, BLM flag, and so on. The sauce for the goose is the sauce for the gander.
And also hope it doesn’t “stare decisis.” Which it will do, absent some new issue.
The message of burning a flag is very clear, they hate America. As for my "silly Nazi reference" it's a comparison, not calling someone a Nazi. There are few things that are our of bounds socially now days. I could have said a Klan uniform but that's about it. The point is that some things that are legal can and should get you ostracized.
It could also mean America is in trouble because of burning itself up, metaphorically. (Would it make a difference if the flag being burned was also right side up or upside down?)
LOLOLOL!
I’d pay to see that!
Instead of jeopardizing the 1st Amendment by banning flag burning, they should just make it legal to punch flag burners in the face.
I agree.
This might cause that issue to be raised.
Donald may end up pointing out that if we agree that burning the Stars and Stripes is a free speech which may not be penalized under the constitution... then the same should go for burning any other symbol or flag. Wanna burn BLM or gay flags? We’ll regard it all the same, and no screeching about hate crimes!
Well, where does it say free speech has to be clear? Who gets to decide? A Democrat administration? That’s just a dumb made up argument to start with.
How about burning pictures of flag burners, to extend the answer in kind.
They are being specific.
They’re protesting “this system.”
Not “that” system.
“This” one.
The flag burners-—revcom.org-—aka the Revolutionary Communist Party-—have been burning the American flag and bawling thru a bullhorn about “this system” for over 40 years.
That’s their schtick, and they’re sticking to it.
It was one of the RCP’s leaders, Greg Johnson, who won the SCOTUS case-—see Texas v Johnson— that gave them the “right” to burn the flag.
Mr. Johnson and some of his comrades were high profile at the Rodney King riots, and more recently at Ferguson, Baltimore, NYC, Baton Rouge, etc.
The RCP idolizeS Mao and wantS to overthrow the US Constitution and replace it with a Maoist dictatorship. But of course Mr. Johnson declared his Constitutional First Amendment rights were violated when he was arrested for burning the US flag. Thus the SCOTUS case, which ended with the Court declaring flag burning to be protected speech.
Incidentally, Scalia voted with the majority.
I’m not in favor of allowing anything to be burned in public. Creates smelly smoke and potential for injury.
H/T weaselzippers
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.