Free Speech .... Burn it!

[lukster]

I agree that a proposed amendment to ban flag burning was a political ploy to polarize voters.

As I've been accused of repeating, there is a more real threat to our "freedom of speech". Some so despise religion that they are willing to look the other way as this liberty is trampled so long as it is only religious "fanatics" being deprived. You don't don't have to look very far back in history to see where this can lead.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Thud
That would be in public right, but a school can decide to keep out grievous or controversial issues at a private gathering, am I correct?

I'll explain why I think the contents were relevant: there have been a number of cases in the US in which employees were fired and their dismissal was upheld in court because they were preaching to their co-workers.
There their right to practice their religion and to freely express themselves were deemed subordinate to the other employees not being confronted with the expression of religion by the fired employees in question.
There the decisive factor consisted of the 'degree of active expression of religion, i.e. preaching or not', ergo, it seems to matter what is said in such a case.

Public schools are just that, public, not private. I agree that a private organization has the right to restrict certain behaviors.

[Maverick]

Ah, but the concept of public is a misnomer. The public schools are actually not just open to the public, they are in fact government entities. Try entering one without a justifiable reason to be present on campus. That is where the rub is here. They cannot, by court law and constitutional interpretation, allow anything resembling prosletizing as a part of an official school function. To do so, particularly without allowing any and ALL other faiths to do so is in fact taking a stance on one religious belief over others.

One point missed here is that the valedictoruian had this explained when her draft speech was given back to her and she was directed to remove references to religion. She was not unaware of the issue, she chose to ignore direction given to her by the entity responsible for the school and the school's functions. Make no mistake about it, a graduation is not an open "public forum", it is a school sponsored, directed and official activity.

I may not like the fact that she had her microphone cut off, but she was not at her forum, but the school's forum. As she was entering in the "adult world" she just got a lesson that you can't get your way all the time especially on someone elses dime.

[lukster]

Public schools are very much public. That is the exact reason given by those who would remove any appearance of that school's support for a religion. The school is operated by the state. I might agree that an employee could be considered a representative of the state in this context but not a student. Of course I believe that a valedictorian of any religion should be able to exercise their freedom of speech, not just this christian.


My youngest graduated from highschool in 2001. We all found it sad, but amusing, that in the speech of his classes valedictorian he gave "thanks to the one whose name he was not allowed to say but that it rhymed with beezus".

[Maverick]

Lukster I reiterate. Try entering a highschool, Junior high or elementary school campus when you have no justifiable reason to be there and watch what happens.

The school is operated by the state.

Yes it is and as such is fully constrained from anything related to religion particularly in a state sanctioned and provided function like a graduation.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Maverick
Lukster I reiterate. Try entering a highschool, Junior high or elementary school campus when you have no justifiable reason to be there and watch what happens.

The school is operated by the state.

Yes it is and as such is fully constrained from anything related to religion particularly in a state sanctioned and provided function like a graduation.

Try not entering one when you have a reason to be there.

Some would have all of us as "members" of the "state" and therefore not entitled to freedom of speech when it comes to religion. Don't buy into it.

[lazs2]

thud... you claim that we can't make an act illegal based soley on the fact that it might offend people to the point of violence (incite a riot) because the offended may be the ones that are wrong.

I would tend to agree but that is not the way things are.... You can't wave the stars and bars (confederate flag) at a naacp rally or burn a cross at a kkk rally.

Burning a flag is an act that could very easily cause a riot.   I would say on a more personal level... in smaller groups it could be considered an insult by people and be the just cause for starting a fight.

lazs

[Thud]

I understand your practical point, mine was initially theoretical, on the other hand it is not uncommon for kkk protesters to have a rally under police protection while simultaneously opposing protesters do the same, also under police supervision.
As far as I know there are typically a lot of provocative signs and banners present at such events as well as lots of flammable chants and shouts.
These are also allowed (I assume as free speech?) but are apparently completely legal. Same goes for those idiots who desecrate GI funerals, totally wrong in a moral sense, but legal. Riot-inciting and bannable are quite different in practice I'm afraid.

Above may apply to things as flag burning as well.
On a personal note, I don't believe in a ban, though I think using it as a form of protest is a dumb, nondescript and empty means of expression that only negates any arguments that they may have.

[RedTop]

Originally posted by lazs2
well... burning the flag is not speech.    It is an act.   It is an expression of an idea but it is not speech.   It is an act that can be benign or... meant to incite.  

It is no more protected under free speech than cross burning or cartoons of watermellon eating colored people.  It is an act meant to incite riot or assault.   In that respect it can be restricted.  If the act causes people be offended to the point of violence then it is wrong..

Not to mention.... I know of very few cities where it is legal to burn anything without a permit.

Freedom of expression is allowed in the U.S. and should be but expression meant to incite violence should not be.

On the other hand... some speech is outlawed for some and not for others.  That is a real violation of free speech.

lazs

I would like to offer you a helmet. This will be somewhat of a help while your beating your head against the wall.

I agree with you , but arguing anything anymore with the Left side and sometimes the right , will just lead to a massive headache.

I do wish you the best of luck though and Advil or Tylenol for the headache your bound to get.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by lazs2
well... burning the flag is not speech.  
lazs

yada yada blah blah blah...








That wasn't a speech either, or even words, but it made a point.

[Hangtime]

Burning a flag is an act that could very easily cause a riot. I would say on a more personal level... in smaller groups it could be considered an insult by people and be the just cause for starting a fight.

How many riots have we had over burning flags?

OTOH, should the government succeed in codifiing the display of the flag, how many handsomehunk deputies will be writing tickets for having a flag displayed incorrectly. How many 'stops' will be made for unapproved bumber stickers?

We need laws for flag etiquette a damn sight less than we need helmet laws.

[wrag]

IIRC way back when the flag burning thing started some of the flag burners got their butts kicked by fellow Americans, that happened to be present, for doing so.

The courts got involved.  Flag burning became free speech.  The people that repsonded to the flag burning with physical violence also lost in court.

IMHO under the circumstances, and taking into consideration what our flag means to some, a violent reaction is not only understandable BUT they are expressing their viewpoint, they are expressing themselves, in this case IMHO physical violence could be construed as protected under the 1st amendment as a right of freedom expression!

IMHO The burning of the flag is a form of violence.  Mental perhaps, but IMHO it is a form of violence.

Thus IMHO certain forms of violence are ALREADY protected.  So why not a violent response?

Isn't there somewhere within our laws, or legal system, that states a person only has to take so much?

[Furious]

are you serious?

[RedTop]

Originally posted by wrag
IIRC way back when the flag burning thing started some of the flag burners got their butts kicked by fellow Americans, that happened to be present, for doing so.

The courts got involved.  Flag burning became free speech.  The people that repsonded to the flag burning with physical violence also lost in court.

IMHO under the circumstances, and taking into consideration what our flag means to some, a violent reaction is not only understandable BUT they are expressing their viewpoint, they are expressing themselves, in this case IMHO physical violence could be construed as protected under the 1st amendment as a right of freedom expression!

IMHO The burning of the flag is a form of violence.  Mental perhaps, but IMHO it is a form of violence.

Thus IMHO certain forms of violence are ALREADY protected.  So why not a violent response?

Isn't there somewhere within our laws, or legal system, that states a person only has to take so much?

Hi Wrag:) on your post

[lasersailor184]

I believe Free Speech is Freedom of Expression.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky

Or.. from somebody on the other side of the spectrum:

"Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection. -- Colin Powell"

Living Document, or not?

Do the words of the constitution mean something different?  Or do they mean exactly what they say?

Choose now Hang.  You can't have it both ways.