To: tflabo
The flag burning issue is fascinating. It's like a logic problem that can't be solved.
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.
37 posted on
06/27/2006 4:04:46 PM PDT by
durasell
(!)
To: durasell
Let's make sure we understand ourselves. The constitution/bill of rights allows for such expression.
43 posted on
06/27/2006 4:08:14 PM PDT by
Piedra79
To: durasell
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.
44 posted on
06/27/2006 4:08:32 PM PDT by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: durasell
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?
52 posted on
06/27/2006 4:11:40 PM PDT by
billbears
(Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
To: durasell
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'?
59 posted on
06/27/2006 4:14:55 PM PDT by
the anti-liberal
(OUR schools are damaging OUR children)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson