Senate blocks flag-burn ban

Herald Sun ^ | 28 June 2006

[Dimensio]

Not if it burns down your house next to mine, my business OR THE CITY I PAID TAXES TO BUILD AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT I PAID WITH TAXES TO RESPOND!

Then their crime is not of flag desecration, but of arson and endangerment. They should be punished no more or less harshly as someone who had caused the same result while burning this, the French national flag:

[freedom moose]

umm..no. The only countries that outlaw burning or desecrating their national flag are China, Cuba, Iran, and Iraq.
In Spain, flag desecration is a crime, granted you don't go in front of a firing squad for it, but it's a crime. If you don't believe me type "bandera españa delito" into google. you'll see among other stories, the case where some young Catalan seperatists got into trouble for an animated computer graphic of a burning flag. BTW, my informing you of this in no way should be interpreted as suppport for governments obliging citizens to respect a flag.

[Dimensio]

No I am not. I think I'd made that clear. Those who'd burn the flag in protest of those freedoms you enjoy are the selfsame ones who'd as soon see your loss of them in favor of their own Utopia. In your opinion, is their position "protected speech"?

Yes. The First Amendment guarantees the expression of even the idea that the rights and freedoms of this country -- including the rights and freedoms guaranteed by that very amendment -- are abhorrent and should be abolished.

or do you see it as a potential threat to your freedom?

I am not threatened with expression of bad ideas. I do feel threatened with the attempt to supress the expression of bad ideas, as such a prohibition can easily be twisted into a claim that the government feels that such ideas are of merit, and must silence them to prevent the majority from realising their truth.

If not, then why not? You'd not so readily afford an avowed enemy of the US the same latitude, would you?

The rights and freedoms of this country are guaranteed for all citizens, not only those who agree with the principles of that country. Suppressing the expression of dissent -- even extreme dissent -- is the domain of tyrannies, not free societies.

Or is the willingness to grant "freedom of speech" protection to burning the flag as protest of America's freedoms a guise for a measure of cowardice to protect them?

If I were truly afraid of them, I would be in favor of banning the expression of their ideas in any format. However, I do not fear them. I do not believe that their act of flag desecration will destroy our government, nor do I believe that it will diminish the freedoms that I enjoy within this country. I would prefer to allow them to legally continue their actions, so that all can see their hypocracy excercising the freedom of spitting on the government that allows that freedom.

Exactly how much protection should we offer those who would use our rights and freedoms as tools to attack and destroy us?

An act of flag desecration neither "attacks" nor "destroys" us. It is a truly weak and impotent government that is diminished by the desecration of a common physical object, no matter what that object may symbolize.

IMO, I'd say we give them exactly what they wish - we should offer them NONE of the protected freedoms they so sorely hate.

In so doing, we grant them what they wish and also legitimize -- even if only in small part -- their grievances.

Persons of greater courage than we have and do expend extreme sacrifice to preserve those freedoms represented by the Stars and Bars and those willing to burn her in protest of what she represents does so in contempt of those who have paid and will pay the price necessary to preserve her.

Regardless, I do not see this as legitimate justification for criminalizing the act. Their lack of respect is disgraceful and abhorrent, but it is not itself justification for criminal penalty.

. Some would claim those freedoms also envelope that of burning the flag. I simply disagree. I believe coverage under those freedoms should end with the ignition of the match.

Why?

Lighting the fire isn't the threshold of contempt, the mindset behind it is. Lighting the fire is just a manifestation of the "heart". Although I don't think an amendment is necessary, I think lawfully banning the burning just drives an enemy underground whereas otherwise they could be publicly marked where appropriate measures could possibly be taken.

Lawfully banning flag desecration suggests that the government is unable to gain respect legitimately, and as such must dictate it through force of law.

[mississippi red-neck]

The Constitution doesn't need this amendment.

You're right.

What we need is the supreme court to overturn that stupid ruling that said burning the flag is speech.

It is not speech it is an physical act, one that was against the law, supported by the majority of American citizens, passed by Congress and signed by the President as required by the Constitution of the United States of America.

It was not, is not now and never will be speech.

Free speech is what is protected by the Constitution and is the form of communication that is used in this country and recognized around the world to make one's point in the venue of public, legal and political discourse.

There is no Constitutional right to be offensive or to commit an offensive act that has been made unlawful by the people who exercised their Constitutional rights to make it unlawful through their legislators.

It is the people's Constitutional right to self- government that was violated by a group of tyrants in black robes making law to suit their own political agenda.

[Dimensio]

There is no Constitutional right to be offensive or to commit an offensive act that has been made unlawful by the people who exercised their Constitutional rights to make it unlawful through their legislators.

You are saying, then, that there exists a right not to be offended?

[mississippi red-neck]

Bottom line? The Senate wanted this Amendment dead, and it is now dead.

You are right it was one of their election time pandering to the base votes.

This is just political posturing. The Republicans are just trying to sucker the base into voting for them again,

The Senate knows before any vote is taken how it is going to turn out.

They made sure that they had just enough not to pass it and you can bet those two Republicans that where tagged to vote against it are not up for reelection and a lot of the Democrats who did are.

Both parties do this crap all the time and the American people fall for it year after year.

They set around in Washington in their little kingdoms cutting up the American taxpayer pie for themselves and their friends, with their elite ruling class mentality laughing at our stupidity and gullibility.

They go to their dinner parties and back rooms where the real decisions are made hidden from our eyes and ears laughing quietly and making smug remarks to each other about their superior intellect, when we fume at the gall of the legalistic extortions they heap upon us.

I include myself as one of the leading candidates in the long line of the duped.

I got what I deserve for trusting people who come from rich non-working backgrounds who are lawyers/politicians and make their careers by constantly lying and deliberately deceiving us.

No more.

[Wurlitzer]

Discussing this with you is like rounding up cats. Your all over the place. Lets leave it at that.

[Eagle Eye]

It is not speech it is an physical act,

What about political satire in the form of cartoons, drawings, or silent theater?

Should the government ban or regulate any of those that offend certain people or the governing administration?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Are drawings speech?

Drawings do not kill people, fire does...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Whoda thunk that Sir Francis was on the side of the Muslims?

I see lots of Islamics burning U.S. flags.

(I really want to nuke Mecca, have said so many times here and other places.)

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Discussing this with you is like rounding up cats. Your (sic) all over the place.

No, I have repeatedlty said fire is not speech. You are the one who is all over the place...

[Eagle Eye]

Drawings do not kill people, fire does...

Quit being silly. Flag and effigy burning do not have any significant death tolls associated with them.

But if safety was your issue, which it is not, it isn't hard to safely control the hazards. But I'm willing to say that you are merely hiding behind a false public safety concern with fire. Are you willing to 'legalize' ripping a flag to shreds, using it as a door mat or worse as a form of protest? Or do you have imaginary safety issues there, too?

[Eagle Eye]

But you also failed to answer the questions.

Drawings aren't speech. Do you think the government should regulate politically derogatory or offensive drawings?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Drawings are not fire...

[Eagle Eye]

So if one wishes to burn a flag in the middle of a vacant Walmart parking lot with ten local firemen to prevent spread of the fire, what say you then?

This would be a form of non speech expression.

And AGAIN, you have not answered the question of whether or not you believe that the government should regulate politial drawings or polictically satirical silent theater.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

So if one wishes to burn a flag in the middle of a vacant Walmart parking lot with ten local firemen to prevent spread of the fire, what say you then?

The ten fireman are on the public payroll... Secondly, Walmart does not allow people lighting fires on their property...

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

This would be a form of non speech expression.,/i>

No, it would be arson.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Drawings and theater are not fire...

[Eagle Eye]

What a cowardly response.