Doesn't speech mean anything? I mean I can't go up to someone and say "I'm going to straight up murder your ass" without getting in trouble.
What I'm trying to say is that if people want to burn the flag let them. There should be consequences though. Consequences such as revoking their citizenship. If someone wants to burn the flag, don't let them vote, hold a government job, or get any federal aid for at least 4 years. Then they get an opportunity to apply for citizenship.
"What I'm trying to say is that if people want to burn the flag let them. There should be consequences though. Consequences such as revoking their citizenship. If someone wants to burn the flag, don't let them vote, hold a government job, or get any federal aid for at least 4 years. Then they get an opportunity to apply for citizenship."
Put the bong down, and head to bead. It will be better in the morning...
1. The proposed amendment is because there is very little that can be done legally if someone is burning the flag. So, no amendment, no laws.
2. Revoke citizenship... jeez. This is sarcasm, right?
As much as I think that many forms of speech shouldn't be protected, I'd rather err on the side of broad bounderies than to have some overzealous cop pull me over because my car has a red, white and blue paint scheme.
I prefer the "consequence"sugested in the folk tales from
the Civil War. When an American President while hastely
beating retreat from Washington purportedly told a seargent
left behind to gaurd the vacated WhiteHouse to "Shoot"
anybody who tried to haul down our flag.Probably an urban myth but I do like the consequences-ought be applied to any
Hate America firster. Desecration of the flag is NOT speech.
the oligarchy of despots got it wrong when they protected the freaking disafected Communist from Texas justice.