Is this a joke?

[Pooh21]

and still getting back on topic


Does this mean Mohammed Mohammed (formerly Wayne Brady) gonna have to blow a bus full of bishes up?

[straffo]

Originally posted by lazs2
french occupation money?

lazs

Never had one

The only attempt to make French use another money than their own was by Roosevelt ,and it failed.

[Airhead]

Originally posted by deSelys
See Airhead: there are already people in this thread who are talking about the crime of flag-burning, or who are even ready to physically assault anybody who is burning a flag.

WTF is wrong with those guys...a flag is just a symbol. Burning it is bad taste in my book and only shows a lack of imagination but it doesn't justify prison nor physical punishment. This kind of nationalistic crap led Germany to nazism. Wake up.

But the overwhelming majority of us agree protecting free speech means nothing as long as we also agree with that speech, that it's protecting free speech we disagree with- nay, abhor- that is the litmus test.

[deSelys]

There I agree completely with you, AIrhead. That's also why I said some christian americans.

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by Airhead
But the overwhelming majority of us agree protecting free speech means nothing as long as we also agree with that speech, that it's protecting free speech we disagree with- nay, abhor- that is the litmus test.

I also agree.  Nobody is more surprised than I.

[lazs2]

sandie... if the second isn't very well written then neither are the others.... I don't see anything about flag burning in the first.

The DOJ would dissagree with you that the second is badly written.  They claim that the meaning is very clear and that "people" or "the People" means exactly the same in every case in every part of the amendments.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

look at the part that explains the "right of the people"   The Department of Justice clearly states that "people" is an individual right as oppossed to a state or group right.

I see nothing in the first that guarentees that I can burn any flag as part of my free speech.

lazs

[indy007]

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.

"Actions speak louder than words."

"I'll let my actions speak for me."

"Well done is better than well said."

My girlfriend can give me the evil eye when I mouth off to her, and without words, she made it very clear that I probably won't be getting any that night. If somebody is flipping you off, that's an action, but it very clearly communicates what they mean. What about sign language? Are deaf people speaking to each other or acting to each other?

Maybe it should be freedom of communication instead of freedom of speech.



ps: Burning a flag, while effectively communicating their dislike for the cause of the moment, also speaks to me "I'm a sweetheart that can't form a good arguement to convince the masses... so I'm burning something and playing bongos to be a spectacle."


Ahh, another one just occured to me. Was the Boston Tea Party an "act" (of vandalism and theft no less), or a bold declaration that they weren't going to put up with the BS? I would say the latter, because their message was very clear even if they didn't speak it.

[streakeagle]

Why would anyone want to burn the flag that was carried by those that died to give them the right to speak freely? Burning the flag at a protest is symbolic--think about what it symbolizes. Does it represent Bill Clinton or George Bush? Or the sacrifice of thousands that died carrying it into battle? Or does it symbolize each and every U.S. citizen? It's not smart to whiz in your own wheaties.

Flag burners should learn to exercise another right, the right to remain silent But I would rather see the flag burned than walked on, deficated on, urinated on, etc.

The funny part is that the very people that protestors are trying to reach by burning our flag could care less. Instead, the ones hurt the most by the flag burning are those still risking their lives defending those rights that flag burners value so much.

As for actions versus words versus free speech:
Dropping your pants and bending over sends a very distinct message. However, established standards of decency make such an action a crime. I think burning the national flag falls within that same category. It is an obscene act that is done for the very same reasons as mooning someone: as an insult and to get attention. I don't think there needs to be a law. People should choose to act decent because it is the right thing to do. But some people have no respect for anything or anyone else beyond their own goals and ambitions. Having the right to free speech and having the wisdom to use it productively are two very different things.

[midnight Target]

We are lucky in 2 ways....

1. The DOJ doesn't interpret the law.
2. The people on this BBS don't decide which speech should be free.

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by midnight Target
1. The DOJ doesn't interpret the law.

Of interest, this is from the conclusion of the DOJ's analysis of the 2nd ammendment:

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms.

[Rino]

What I've noticed is that the "free speech" folks are just as
hypocritical as the one they are critisizing.  Just because you feel
a certain way doesn't give you the right to express your feelings
with no expectation of disagreement.

     Or maybe that freedom of speech thing only works one way
afterall?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Of interest, this is from the conclusion of the DOJ's analysis of the 2nd ammendment:

Sure, but the DOJ's analysis of the 2nd Amendment isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by Rino
What I've noticed is that the "free speech" folks are just as
hypocritical as the one they are critisizing.  Just because you feel
a certain way doesn't give you the right to express your feelings
with no expectation of disagreement.

     Or maybe that freedom of speech thing only works one way
afterall?

I think you're creating a straw man argument here.  Nobody here has suggested that people listening have to sit back and not respond.  My particular problem is when people use legislation to try and stifle the free speech.

If you don't like Joe Hippy burning the flag, it's a damn fine american thing to go break his nose.  You might get arrested, but your only crime will be assaulting a person, a time honored hobby.

If you use the law to prevent people from making their hateful statement with the burning of the flags, then the assault you're guilty of is on Lady Liberty herself, and that's just a little more serious.

[GtoRA2]

Chairboy
Well said Chair.

[Bluedog]

Originally posted by Pei
If the flag is my property then I'll do what I damn well please with it, and none of you pinko-liberal-socialist femi-nazis can tell me otherwise!

Can an individual or corporation actually 'own' a national flag?
I may be way off track here, but I'm sure I've heard that you can never own a national flag, even if you do buy it and have a reciept, that flag is the property of the nation it represents and you are merely it's (the flag's) keeper/gaurdian for the time it is in your posession?

Like I say, I could be way off in a differant world alltogether, or someone may have just pulled my leg in a most convincing manner.