Flag amendment apparently stalls in Senate [Democrats put forth an alternate - Durbin]

Yahoo ^

[Piedra79]

Being racist is wrong....but that doesn't make it illegal. You seem to have the perception that just because something is wrong, there should be a law against it. I think smoking is wrong....should outlaw that? Feeling something that is wrong should be outlawed sounds a lot more like a liberal to me.

[durasell]

What if cops simply arrested the flag burners on charges of creating a public hazard or some such?"

I see respect for those who died and those who serve in our military isn't a priority for you ... just shaking my head in disgust.





I see the same thing as well as a nation of laws and a people that could inspire their sacrifice.

[Piedra79]

Let's make sure we understand ourselves. The constitution/bill of rights allows for such expression.

[Dimensio]

On one side you're limiting free speech/expression in order to preserve the symbol that stands for free speech and expression.

On the other side, you're expressing yourself in an extreme manner by destroying the symbol that allows you the freedom of such extreme expression.

False dichotomy. Despite the false claims of some here, not all -- and, in fact, very few -- of those who oppose a flag desecration amendment believe that destruction of the flag is an acceptable means of expression.

[bullseye1]

Most people would never dream of burning the American flag out of great respect for our fallen heroes. But our fallen heroes faught fiercly to keep us... free.

It's almost an oxymoron to say you are not free to burn the symbol of freedom.

[dakine]

Such important things to do before election day...

[billbears]

Since the Supremes don't mind burning patriotic flag cloth can we just ignite their black robes instead?

Real nice. An average person could take that as an intended verbal threat against a sitting Supreme Court Justice. Even if you don't have any argument for your silly little Amendment besides what you 'feel', you shouldn't resort to such statements.

[durasell]

More please...

I've actually given this stuff some thought. Really want your opinion. Seriously.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I'm not going to waste my time splitting hairs over this.

Flag burning is WRONG.

I agree. But passing a contitutional amendment to ban flag burning is an even greater wrong.

[Auntie Dem]

... If you can't ARTICULATE your disagreement - burning a flag won't do it. Burning a flag is NOT SPEECH. It is a despicable ACT.

Giving somebody the finger is an ACT, but it says something too.

Personally, I oppose an amendment banning flag burning. I think a law that says anyone assaulting anyone burning a flag cannot be prosecuted for assault would work for me.

If burning a flag is speech, then that "speech" is "Fighting Words", and deserves an appropriate response: A couple of left jabs, two rights to the face, an uppercut to the jaw, and a size 12 to the groin would do it.

How many of these left-wing scumbags have the guts to take a beating for their despicable acts? None. Flag burnings would practically disappear from public discourse.

[durasell]

Let's make sure we understand ourselves. The constitution/bill of rights allows for such expression



I believe so. But I could be wrong...

[billbears]

by destroying the symbol that allows you the freedom of such extreme expression.

Exactly how does a symbol allow anything? Does the government provide rights or did such rights exist without government?

[imintrouble]

Let the flag burners show themselves by their very act of desecretion - we will know them for what and who they are and shun them accordingly.

The flag cannot be dishonored by an ignorant few.

[nmh]

Odd how it USED to be illegal.


Odd how having consequences for wrong behavior is not "liberal" according to you.

LOL!!!

[Piedra79]

Yeah and it used to be legal to segregate bathrooms...your point?

[nmh]

We shouldn't need a Constitutional Amendment.

Nor should we need a Constitutional Amendment for English being our official language and singing it in ENGLISH!

[durasell]

Exactly how does a symbol allow anything? Does the government provide rights or did such rights exist without government?




Okay, wrong phrasing. Apologies. How about: A symbol that stands for the expression....

Symbols are basically visual shorthand.

[Dimensio]

Odd how it USED to be illegal.

This is not a coherent or logical argument in favor of criminalizaing flag desecration.

Odd how having consequences for wrong behavior is not "liberal" according to you.

No one has said such a thing. Your reply is a non-sequitur. You appear to be claiming that any who oppose flag burning by extention oppose all laws against currently criminal acts. That is not a logical argument. You are invoking a strawman argument, through use of a false analogy and the "poisoning the well" fallacy.

[the anti-liberal]

I wonder, this whole thing seems to hinge on defining 'flag burning' as a form of expression.

Could it not be defined as an act rather than as a form of expression and therefore not protected as an 'expression', but prosecutable as an 'act'?

[nmh]

"It's not speech? It doesn't send a message? Sounds like it conveys a message, especially since you're getting so fired up over the message that it sends.

Sorry that you don't like the content of the message, but deal. Being a grown-up means dealing with things you don't like."

Speaking of being an ADULT, that includes SELF CONTROL and RESPECT for others that cherish that symbol. Being an ADULT also means being able to articulate displeasure through speech not burning objects and symbols unless you are at war.