Author Topic: Is this a joke? (Read 1879 times)

LePaul · « **Reply #45 on:** May 31, 2005, 05:24:05 PM »

I dunno, for me...if you are burning the flag in protest, its the ultimate insult to your country and fellow citizens. You can do a lot of things to show your disgust for an issue, politician or your country's stance. But to take your flag and burn it...its like setting fire to your own ship.

Its a pretty fuzzy line between protected actions and all out disrespect. I think an ultimate misdeed deserves a hearty reaction. Hate it here? Pack up and go elsewhere.

But again...that's just me Maybe they'll indulge your flag burning over there.

midnight Target · « **Reply #46 on:** May 31, 2005, 05:26:01 PM »

So we should only protect "respectful" speech? Why even have an amendment?

Sandman · « **Reply #47 on:** May 31, 2005, 05:26:18 PM »

Pffft... If you hate it here, you're free to try and change it.

Can't say the same for a lot of other places.

Chairboy · « **Reply #48 on:** May 31, 2005, 05:44:41 PM »

The first ammendment says nothing about being respectful or polite, LePaul.

Just to be clear, are you saying that you want it to be re-written so that only popular viewpoints are protected?

LePaul · « **Reply #49 on:** May 31, 2005, 05:59:10 PM »

No. Not at all.

My statement is about the burning of the flag. Period. Its the symbol of our country, a symbol many have died for. Burning it, asides in the context if replacing a tattered flag, is nothing more but the ultimate contempt to the country.

They are many many other ways to protest you opinion. I think the flag is just one of those hot button issues where those who want to burn it are giddy with glee, winding up those who cherish it as the ultimate symbol of our country. Much like the same peoples who take pride in "Christmas" being rubbed off the Holiday seasons, nativity scenes, etc

Hangtime · « **Reply #50 on:** May 31, 2005, 06:25:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
It is my right as an American to burn the flag. Many have died to make sure I have that right. Why would you dishonor them by trying to reduce our freedom of speech?

Agreed. Of course, I expect the freedom to kick the guy's ballsac up around his neck to be observed... granted, i expect to be arrested and given a trial by my peers.

After my conviction and suspended sentance I'll write a book and get rich.

I love this country.

DrDea · « **Reply #51 on:** May 31, 2005, 06:30:11 PM »

LOL well spoken.

Chairboy · « **Reply #52 on:** May 31, 2005, 06:34:18 PM »

You're not being clear, LePaul.

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please describe where, in the text above or elsewhere in the constitution it explains that only the most watered down protest is allowed?

Burning a flag is an effective method for some people to use as a tool to call attention to a grievance. I wouldn't do it, but I understand the how and why of it.

The great document the above comes from has done us well for 200+ years. There have been amendments to correct injustices, but what you propose would strike at the #1 tenet of our civilization and redefine "Freedom of speech" to more closely resemble "Freedom of popular speech that doesn't offend anyone". Either that, or it puts a great big asterix next to the first ammendment with the caveat "Some restrictions may apply".

VOR · « **Reply #53 on:** May 31, 2005, 06:41:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
The only people who truely hate our Country are those who would trample on the rights it so proudly protects.

Give us a fluff'n break here. Burning the flag has little to do with "speech" and everything to do with shock value. Flag burners enjoy the public spectacle and live for the sound of little church ladies' rectums slamming shut when they see the hippies hard at work. If the interpretive dance-hairdressing-self-expressing actually had something to say, maybe people would listen. Making a public artistic bongo-drum playing arse of one's self as a means of delivering some kind of political message is just about as silly as sticking your head in a lion's mouth. In the end, it's all about hearing the crowd gasp and mumble.

To speak one's mind freely without fear of government repercussions is everyone's right and I support it completely. Making a public anus of yourself with the full intent of inciting angry response is also one's right...just don't expect everyone to step between you and the angry mob you create.

Chairboy · « **Reply #54 on:** May 31, 2005, 07:07:45 PM »

You might be right VOR. The important thing is that said spectacle remains a right. Some folks here seem fine with altering the constitution to remove that fine little bit of natural selection.

DrDea · « **Reply #55 on:** May 31, 2005, 07:13:16 PM »

Theres a HUGE hard to not notice diffrence in freedom of "Speach" and burning a flag to provoke.Speach...the act of speaking...Last time I heard flags dont talk even if you burn them but then again...maby they talk to you??

Chairboy · « **Reply #56 on:** May 31, 2005, 07:18:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DrDea
Theres Speach...the act of speaking...Last time I heard flags dont talk even if you burn them but then again...maby they talk to you??

So 'freedom of speech' doesn't apply to writing? What about art? Is an editorial cartoon unprotected?

DrDea · « **Reply #57 on:** May 31, 2005, 07:31:36 PM »

No it isnt.Either case you just presented involve communication either in "Speach",or text.Both should be covered.Something done only to incite,like burning a flag is not speach,its an act, and if you think acts are speach I guess we have no common reference.

LePaul · « **Reply #58 on:** May 31, 2005, 07:32:28 PM »

VOR hit what I was so poorly trying to explain.

Im not asking for anything to be rewritten, I simply gave my opinion. You are certainly welcome to agree, disagree or all out think Im a fool

Chairboy · « **Reply #59 on:** May 31, 2005, 07:51:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DrDea
No it isnt.Either case you just presented involve communication either in "Speach",or text.Both should be covered.Something done only to incite,like burning a flag is not speach,its an act, and if you think acts are speach I guess we have no common reference.

So, for an editorial cartoon to be protected, there must be speaking or writing in it?

So let me guess, this is not protected:

Or is the part where the dogs are barking 'Aarp! Aarp!' the specific speech that's protected?

Free speech means more then just words you say out loud, it's about concepts.