Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Raider179 on May 31, 2005, 02:15:47 AM
-
Production deadlines played a factor in Chappelle's reported meltdown, according to Farley — something which began to surface as far back as November of 2004.
"He was having problems throughout the writing," Farley added. "It dealt with some very difficult sexual and political and racial material ... He himself has sort of changed inside as he has become a practicing Muslim and so with all those issues and the fact that he wants to make sure the show projects him and his comedy in the right light."
WTF Dave Chappele a muslim?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8038045/
-
Are you suggesting that Muslims can't be funny? Seems a bit inflammatory...
I know plenty of funny christians. What's the difference?
-
You can joke with Christians about burning flags or bibles, for example.
For some reason Musilms don't find any type of "Koran" jokes very funny.
Hey...you asked.
;)
-
Mmmmmm according to your explanation, Curval, some christian americans posting on this board take jokes about burning US flags or bibles in a very "islamistic" way...
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Mmmmmm according to your explanation, Curval, some christian americans posting on this board take jokes about burning US flags or bibles in a very "islamistic" way...
Not sure if that is accurate. They may gnash teeth and stomp around a bit, but these same people here don't riot and kill people.
(not that we know of anyway)
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Mmmmmm according to your explanation, Curval, some christian americans posting on this board take jokes about burning US flags or bibles in a very "islamistic" way...
Minus the bible part for me..
But yea.. don't joke about burning the flag...
-
Ok, based on the respones so far, I postulate the following:
There is a direct inverse correlation between religion and humor. For one to increase, there must be a linear decrease in the other. To wit, the more religious a person is, the less likely they are to be funny, and vice versa.
This must be why I, the atheist, am so Golly-geened funny.
Rideo ergo sum
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
But yea.. don't joke about burning the flag...
Or what?
-
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?
-
I bet this ruins his humor is it is true.. I do not think much of the old stuff is muslim friendly.
-
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?
Seconded. People who try to legislate against the burning of the flag have a basic lack of understanding about what our freedoms stand for.
I'd never do it myself, and I hate seeing it happen, but I'd die fighting to protect the rights of others to do it. How could someone who loves liberty and the US not without being hypocrites?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Seconded. People who try to legislate against the burning of the flag have a basic lack of understanding about what our freedoms stand for.
I'd never do it myself, and I hate seeing it happen, but I'd die fighting to protect the rights of others to do it. How could someone who loves liberty and the US not without being hypocrites?
Ditto
Though I would never do it personaly, nor would I have much respect for anyone who did.
BUT I fully support the right to do it. Just like with abortions.
-
Seems to me that anyone who hates that flag enough to burn it, should forsake all the rights it represents.
Flag burning should revoke citizenship....yeah, I like it.
J_A_B
-
Perhaps we should amend the constitution to say that only popular speech is protected. That'll cover all of those niggling little freedom issues nicely.
-
Well, absolute freedom of speech is not and never has been an American right.
Slander, libel, menacing, inciting panic--all of these are crimes which prevent absolute freedom of "speech".
J_A_B
-
Wait, you're not joking? You actually propose to remove the citizenship of people who burn the flag?
Wow. Well, I think you have made my case better then I could have on my own. I appreciate the help.
-
How did yall go from dave chappelle becoming a muslim to flag burning? lmao
-
Originally posted by Raider179
How did yall go from dave chappelle becoming a muslim to flag burning? lmao
Where's Holden when you need him?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
How did yall go from dave chappelle becoming a muslim to flag burning? lmao
errr...that would be my fault.
I have seen pictures of a number of protestors in Afganistan and elsewhere in the Musilm world burning American flags recently. Nothing new about that I suppose...but it doesn't seem to be a problem for those guys to deface something as sacred to Americans as their flag as a way to protest the "alledged" defacing of their Koran.
This was my way of bringing it up.
:)
-
It would be terribly silly to die for someone's right to burn a flag and I for one would not be willing to do it. While I don't condone flag burning, I won't try to stop some putz from doing it but I won't defend some kind of artistic interpretation of free speech with my life.
Say what you have to say, but then get off the street and stop blocking traffic with all your hoopla and interpretive dance.
-
"Wait, you're not joking? You actually propose to remove the citizenship of people who burn the flag? "
THAT was a joke, based on the irony of the very action of flag-burning. People who burn the flag profess through that action their hatred of this country and everything it stands for--yet they immediately hide behind the freedoms of this country when somebody else questions their actions. That's pretty cowardly, no? It would be more logical--and, indeed, a stronger statement--if the flag burners would NOT try to use "but Americans have freedom of speech" as a justification for their actions. Hence my "it should revoke their citizenship" joke.
The fact that "pure" freedom of speech does not and never has existed is NOT a joke.
Also not joking--I do not feel flag burning should be consitutionally protected. In my opinion it should count as a felony, but not have jail time (the difficulties in finding a job/etc with a felony on your record would be enough of a punishment).
J_A_B
-
comedy with a semtex vest!
Americans have a right to burn the flag, just the same as I have the right to call them jackarses. But they still have the right, plus its amusing when they accidentally light themselves on fire.(granted most who I have seen pull that neat trick off have been foreigners, who in my opinion dont have a right to burn an American flag)
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
[BI do not feel flag burning should be consitutionally protected. In my opinion it should count as a felony, but not have jail time
J_A_B [/B]
Are you familiar with the phrase 'chilling effect' as it pertains to free speech?
You describe a policy that would be at home in Soviet Russia.
Dissent is patriotic. If you want to bust 'em for "burning without a permit" or some sort of nuisance statute for blocking traffic, the laws in their current form allow it. If, on the other hand, you want to suppress someone from stating an opinion, then your actions are clearly un-american. A founding ideal of our country is that the right to make a statement of opinion is protected. If you want to 'fight back' against the people who choose to burn the flag, then stage a counter demonstration that brings glory to our flag and the great nation it stands for.
-
you can burn a flag but you can't polute the air.
cop:: sir you have the right to burn a flag, but you are under arrest for air polution.
(you can't even burn leaves or trash in a city)
-
If I wanted to "suppress" anyone I would advocate for them to be thrown in jail for a few decades, or sent to the gulag as your Soviet example may have done.
No, instead I feel a strong stigma is in order. It's a stigma that, mind you, the protestors who truly stand by their convictions would likely wear as a badge of honor.
J_A_B
-
J_A_B, you use this word 'suppress', but I do not think it means what you think it means. Your 'stigma' argument is a perfect definition of suppressing their speech.
-
We look at it from different angles. You appear to consider the act of flag burning asa protected part of a person's "speech". I do not.
We have this disagreement on a BBS, great example. We're both entitled to our opinions. If you were to track me down and break my legs, that would constitute an escalation of that disagreement beyond what the law protects. I view flag burning as a similar escalation. When a peaceful protest demonstration turns into a hateful orgy of flag-burning anti-americanism, it SHOULD be broken up and the participants SHOULD have that as a permanent stain on their criminal records.
It's illegal for the KKK to burn a cross in the local black man's front yard--in fact it's a hate crime. Physically, it's harmless, but it's very powerful in a symbolic sense. Do you feel that should be legal? Burning our flag is (or, more correctly, should be) a hate crime against ALL of America.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Mmmmmm according to your explanation, Curval, some christian americans posting on this board take jokes about burning US flags or bibles in a very "islamistic" way...
Post a link big mouth- show us a thread where it's been advocated we jail flag and bible burners.
Man some of you Euros jump on every friggin thread and try to paint Americans in as negative light as you possibly can.
Now either back your big anti American mouth up with a link or admit you're full of crap.
-
Aren't you supposed to burn the flag if it touches the ground or is all worn and tattered?
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Aren't you supposed to burn the flag if it touches the ground or is all worn and tattered?
-SW
Bingo.
Burning the flag is the proper way to dispose of it. Now, if you burn it as part of a disposal process, than that's okay. But if you burn it as an act of defiance or protest, you're a scumbag.
Gee... anyone still wondering why the Supreme Court considers this to be a 1st Amendment issue?
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
We look at it from different angles. You appear to consider the act of flag burning asa protected part of a person's "speech". I do not.
We have this disagreement on a BBS, great example. We're both entitled to our opinions. If you were to track me down and break my legs, that would constitute an escalation of that disagreement beyond what the law protects. I view flag burning as a similar escalation. When a peaceful protest demonstration turns into a hateful orgy of flag-burning anti-americanism, it SHOULD be broken up and the participants SHOULD have that as a permanent stain on their criminal records.
It's illegal for the KKK to burn a cross in the local black man's front yard--in fact it's a hate crime. Physically, it's harmless, but it's very powerful in a symbolic sense. Do you feel that should be legal? Burning our flag is (or, more correctly, should be) a hate crime against ALL of America.
J_A_B
Yep I think burning the flag on someone elses lawn should be a crime.
duh!
And just as an aside. POLITICAL speech is specifically protected by numerous rulings of the SC. Burning the flag is about as POLITICAL as it gets. Your opinion luckily doesn't enter into the rights of Americans to express themselves.
-
Why is the Constitution so sacred and important and set-in-stone when discussing the first amendment, but it becomes "flexible" and a "living document" and "open to interpretation" or even "outdated" when discussing the second? Strange, isn't it?
I think it's telling that the only arguments I can see in favor of protecting the act of flag burning are of the "slippery slope" variety. Ban flag burning this week, be living in Soviet Russia next week!
Fortunately, our nation will endure whether our flag is burned or not, in spite of the people who hate it.
J_A_B
-
The only people who truely hate our Country are those who would trample on the rights it so proudly protects.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Why is the Constitution so sacred and important and set-in-stone when discussing the first amendment, but it becomes "flexible" and a "living document" and "open to interpretation" or even "outdated" when discussing the second? Strange, isn't it?
J_A_B
The Second isn't written well.
-
I think we can come to a steady state here based on the last couple posts.
J_A_B, I agree with you that the example you gave w/ the 1st vs. 2nd ammendment is straight up hypocracy. For the record, I believe that flag burning is protected under the 1st, and that the 2nd is very clear that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I think you and I agree on #2.
I also think that your following quote is great:
Fortunately, our nation will endure whether our flag is burned or not, in spite of the people who hate it.
I agree completely. In fact, I argue that the strength of our country is evident clearly in how our laws currently treat flag burners. What they do inflames an emotional response, and outrages most of us, but our outrage MUST NOT result in retaliatory legislation that will stifle those who offend us. Like you said, our nation WILL ENDURE. The moment we legislate to remove protections from those who offend is a clear bell that the nation we love is dissolving into exactly that which our founding fathers strove to escape.
The three of us probably agree more then we think. I suspect Midnight Target, you (J_A_B) and I all want our nation to remain the land of the free and the home of the brave. As citizens, we all must make sure that our intentions and our actions are compatible.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
It's illegal for the KKK to burn a cross in the local black man's front yard--in fact it's a hate crime. Physically, it's harmless, but it's very powerful in a symbolic sense. Do you feel that should be legal? Burning our flag is (or, more correctly, should be) a hate crime against ALL of America.
J_A_B
I agree totally.Great point.:aok
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Post a link big mouth- show us a thread where it's been advocated we jail flag and bible burners.
Man some of you Euros jump on every friggin thread and try to paint Americans in as negative light as you possibly can.
Now either back your big anti American mouth up with a link or admit you're full of crap.
LOL @ Airhead...now a remark about 'some christian americans on this board'=anti-USA
Take yourself for a walk on the beach...and sign up for some english classes.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
J_A_B, I agree with you that the example you gave w/ the 1st vs. 2nd ammendment is straight up hypocracy. For the record, I believe that flag burning is protected under the 1st, and that the 2nd is very clear that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
It doesn't simply state, "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed." If it did, there would be no interpretation required.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
It's illegal for the KKK to burn a cross in the local black man's front yard--in fact it's a hate crime. Physically, it's harmless, but it's very powerful in a symbolic sense. Do you feel that should be legal? Burning our flag is (or, more correctly, should be) a hate crime against ALL of America.
J_A_B
Well... the KKK can burn a cross on their own lawn and it's okay. ;)
-
"The only people who truely hate our Country are those who would trample on the rights it so proudly protects."
Some day, in another gun thread, someone is going to call you on that statement.
Personally, I don't think flag burners are loving patriots (most the time they're whiny brats, I know because I've met a lot of them), and I don't think people who despise that kind of activity hate America. As I said, I do NOT think these people should be thrown in jail for that activity.
As for how well we might agree on things Chairboy--I actually tend to fall left of center in my political leanings.
J_A_B
-
The moment we legislate to remove protections from those who offend is a clear bell that the nation we love is dissolving into exactly that which our founding fathers strove to escape.
I think its an obvious conclusion that if our Forefathers saw some ultra melon burning their flag that they would have more to say about it.Like alot of things they never saw coming down the road,flag burning is done to incite outrage.I dont see the freedom of speach factor.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Personally, I don't think flag burners are loving patriots (most the time they're whiny brats, I know because I've met a lot of them)
You don't have to be a patriot to enjoy the rights in the constitution.
Originally posted by J_A_B
As for how well we might agree on things Chairboy--I actually tend to fall left of center in my political leanings.
The only thing I accused you of was loving your country. If you want to disagree, it's your perogative.
I don't think there's any law that says you have to be conservative or liberal to be patriotic. It seems like a lot of public conservatives have been working overtime to make the case that liberal=anti-american, and likewise, a number of public liberals have said things that don't immediately discount that accusation, but the talking heads on both sides are hardly representative of the quiet majority.
Most people in the US probably don't think that being conservative means you're automatically more patriotic then your commie pinko neighbor any more then they think that being liberal means you're more compassionate then your cold hearted, god fearing conservative neighbor.
Those labels mean nothing, or, at the least, are remarkably ill-equipped to adequetely describe the views on social and economic issues in this country.
-
Originally posted by DrDea
I think its an obvious conclusion that if our Forefathers saw some ultra melon burning their flag that they would have more to say about it.Like alot of things they never saw coming down the road,flag burning is done to incite outrage.I dont see the freedom of speach factor.
One of the great things about the constitution and our way of life is that any individuals inabillity to comprehend something can't throw our national rudder from 'Liberty' to 'Tyranny'.
It would instead take the concerted efforts of thousands of like minded ultra melons to wrest control of congress, the executive branch, and the judicial branch to make the constitutional changes that will kill our country. And it couldn't constitutionally happen overnight, either.
Our election cycle is explicitly set up to stimy any temporary, emotion based legislation. There are some that work extremely hard to defeat this system of checks and balances, but I have faith in the strength of the house that George, Tom, and Ben built to resist this ill fated construction.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"The only people who truely hate our Country are those who would trample on the rights it so proudly protects."
Some day, in another gun thread, someone is going to call you on that statement.
J_A_B
Feel free, and while you're at it find something I've posted that is anti-gun ownership.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
It's illegal for the KKK to burn a cross in the local black man's front yard--in fact it's a hate crime. Physically, it's harmless, but it's very powerful in a symbolic sense. Do you feel that should be legal? Burning our flag is (or, more correctly, should be) a hate crime against ALL of America.
J_A_B
You can burn a cross. You just can't "trespass" onto a black man's yard and burn it there. Burn em all you want in your yard. Unless you got something that says otherwise???
-
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.
-
So we should only protect "respectful" speech? Why even have an amendment?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
LOL well spoken.
-
You're not being clear, LePaul.
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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??
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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:
(http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050406/keefe.gif)
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.
-
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!
-
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!
Yup. Accurate. Concise, and if it's my nations flag and i happen to be there, you'll be singin soprano about 5 seconds after yah hit the striker on the lighter.
...and I'll be out on bail inside 3 hours. Six weeks later; I'll be in a courtroom; get my free trial, recieve a suspended sentance and happily pay your medical bills.
..and you'll still be singin soprano.
Cheers!
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Yup. Accurate. Concise, and if it's my nations flag and i happen to be there, you'll be singin soprano about 5 seconds after yah hit the striker on the lighter.
...and I'll be out on bail inside 3 hours. Six weeks later; I'll be in a courtroom; get my free trial, recieve a suspended sentance and happily pay your medical bills.
..and you'll still be singin soprano.
Cheers!
If I were burning a US flag in front of you in Florida, could I say I felt threatened and pull out a gun and shoot you? :)
-
im going to burn a pirate flag...see what the spirit of blackbeard can do...
-
Originally posted by Pei
If I were burning a US flag in front of you in Florida, could I say I felt threatened and pull out a gun and shoot you? :)
Absolutely.
Don't miss. :cool:
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Production deadlines played a factor in Chappelle's reported meltdown, according to Farley — something which began to surface as far back as November of 2004.
"He was having problems throughout the writing," Farley added. "It dealt with some very difficult sexual and political and racial material ... He himself has sort of changed inside as he has become a practicing Muslim and so with all those issues and the fact that he wants to make sure the show projects him and his comedy in the right light."
WTF Dave Chappele a muslim?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8038045/
and.. getting back to the topic... has Dave donated his 'rich beyatch' millions to Islam yet?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Free speech means more then just words you say out loud, it's about concepts.
...and freedom of expression in any myriad of forms.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Free speech and expression are not a free ticket to public acceptance. You just cannot be sanctioned by the government for expressing those ideas. The public is as free to show it's disapproval of your ideas as you are to express them.
As the public did in the case of the Dixie Chicks.... or Jane Fonda. But for you or me, if we get a permit to burn a cross at a KKK rally they'll have a million cops out there to protect us from the protesters.
-
I guess I wan't fast enough. I thought my post was better placed in the "I believe in free speech but.." thread.
-
Originally posted by Pei
If I were burning a US flag in front of you in Florida, could I say I felt threatened and pull out a gun and shoot you? :)
Well you could say it, but it wouldn't help much at your murder
trial :p
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Are you suggesting that Muslims can't be funny? Seems a bit inflammatory...
I know plenty of funny christians. What's the difference?
christians arent " Nature born terrorist" who wants you dead .. Gary :rofl
-
I don't really care about flag burning but fail to see how setting somethintg on fire is the same as speaking or writing. I can see allowing sign language as part of the first but burning? Cartoons? sure. but burning stuff?
You should be free to burn a flag I suppose if there are no laws against it but... protected uinder free speech? that seems silly.
Why isn't not wearing a seat belt or helmet protected under free speech?
lazs
-
If I can't burn a US flag how will I start my Barbecue ?
-
french occupation money?
lazs
-
and still getting back on topic
Does this mean Mohammed Mohammed (formerly Wayne Brady) gonna have to blow a bus full of bishes up?
-
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.
-
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.
-
There I agree completely with you, AIrhead. That's also why I said some christian americans.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 :p But I would rather see the flag burned than walked on, deficated on, urinated on, etc. :mad:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
Chairboy
Well said Chair.
-
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.
-
how is burning the flag any more "free speech" than not wearing a seat belt or helmet?
MT.. the DOJ does not make law but... this was a very long and complete study and you can bet that it will be used in the decision making process by the supremes. It is well thought out and thorough (did you read any of it?).
The fact is that "the people" as mentioned in the amendments are individuals and if ever the supreme court were to rule that the second did not secure an individual right then all the other amenedments would be in jepordy of having "the people" mean the right of the state and not the people.
The DOJ simply states that the meaning of the second is very clear and that all arguemnts against an individual right to bear arms are too weak to contemplate.
That does not mean that restrictions on types of arms and places to bear arms can't be made but... the part about "militia" means that the restrictions can't make it so the people don't have modern effective arms.
My take is that restricting us all to 6 foot long single shots that could only be stored at a government range would violate the amendment. It would be impossible to form a militia with such arms and storage.
lazs
-
It astounds me the number of people in this thread striving to give up their freedom and give more control and power to the government. Absolute freaking lunacy.
-
first of all thrawn... are you talking about our government or yours?
Second... I agree that giving power to governments should be the very last resort for any problem.
third... What "people" are you talking about? the ones who want to ban flag burning or the ones who want to ban guns?
4th... I do agree that anyone should be able to burn any flag they want (within local fire laws) but I believe that it is silly to protect flag burning or pamphlet burning or trash burning under the guise of freedom of speech.
lazs
-
Ok again back to the topic
Dave Chappelle left the country cause instead he is uncomfortable with the idea of making the infidel laugh instead of waging holy jihad against him?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
first of all thrawn... are you talking about our government or yours?
Both.
third... What "people" are you talking about? the ones who want to ban flag burning or the ones who want to ban guns?
Both.
4th... I do agree that anyone should be able to burn any flag they want (within local fire laws) but I believe that it is silly to protect flag burning or pamphlet burning or trash burning under the guise of freedom of speech.
lazs
I won't be stickler for which right someone wants to call it. How about the right to do what the hell I want as long as it doesn't harm someone else. ;)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I won't be stickler for which right someone wants to call it. How about the right to do what the hell I want as long as it doesn't harm someone else. ;)
Welcome to the Libertarian party!
-
Indeed. ;)
-
Libertarian? phhhtt.
-
ok thrawn... I suppose that we agree on all the points. Have you had a recent change in your way of lookintg at things?
lazs