Posted on 12/05/2016 7:26:20 AM PST by reaganaut1
Last week, president-elect Trump sent a tweet that ought to alarm the majority of Americans who voted for another candidate as well as most of those who voted for him. Here’s what Trump wrote: “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or a year in jail!”
The very last thing we need in America is more activism meant to punish people for thinking the wrong things. Our college campuses are awash in left-wing thought control, whereby students who say or write anything that hypersensitive students or administrators find offensive can be punished. That’s bad enough. We do not need a right-wing counter-movement led by Trump doing the same.
One troubling aspect of Trump’s declaration is that it bespeaks either ignorance of or hostility to the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence. We have considerable history with cases involving governmental efforts at stamping out dissent generally and involving the flag specifically.
In the early 40s, West Virginia punished and expelled students of the Jehovah’s Witness faith because they, following their religion, declined to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school. The state had sound precedent for doing so, a Supreme Court decision (Minersville School District v. Gobitis) that permitted such punishment.
But when the Court heard a similar case in 1943, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, it wisely reversed itself. (As I recently wrote, stare decisis shouldn’t matter when constitutional rights are at stake and this is a good example.)
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Burning is not speech. Burning a flag is not speech. I always like to expose these false comparisons by substituting another noun to see how people would feel about the same action on another noun. For instance, no one would consider it free or protected speech to burn abortion clinics, right?
Who’s being punished for thinking the wrong thing?
Hippies, too.
Yes, yes and again I say, yes.
You can take a sh*t on your living-room rug if you like, but it's still not free speech.
It is ok to force Christians to associate with gays, even force them to work for gays, and the left does not scream about free speech (or association) but they will defend flag burning.
So as a gambit, proclaiming Flag burning to be hate speech and therefore punishable by the state is a great idea.
Get used to this from Trump. If you assail his rights he will double down on assailing one of your rights. If you are actually in favor of criminalizing flag burning you will be disappointed. However, if you wish to see free speech rights restored to Christian bakers you should be pleased.
We Are Real, We Are Truthseekers, And We Do Not Accept Mainstream Media Fake News!
Investment Watch Blog ^ | 12/4/2016 | Pamela William
Posted on 12/5/2016, 8:49:57 AM by Non-Compliant_Deplorable
“The essay I want to share with you is one the most excellent and far-reaching pieces of truth I have ever read. The writer is Carl Herman. Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics...he demands a clear vision of the current Mainstream Media hoax that is currently being played upon Alternative Media. He gives examples of the true hoax of Mainstream Media, which has been played on the American people for a very long time. That is how Alternative Media was born….we had to find our way from the darkness of lies to Light of truth. The Internet is both a positive and negative entity, but Alternative Media has become the positive force of the Internet...”
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3501626/posts
You are 100% correct. As I posted elsewhere:
Trump brought flag burning up for two reasons. First, he wanted the MSM to react hysterically to his comments.
They did not disappoint.
Second, he wanted to rub their noses in their bias. He did this by mentioning the exact same penalty Hillary had advocated in her 2005 anti flag burning bill.
This also worked. Once the initial frenzy died down, the press was confronted by their epic double standard. They lost their minds over a Trump tweet, yet did not even once, during the entire campaign, ever mention the actual bill Hillary sponsored as a US senator.
As usual, Trump won the round decisively. The media ended up looking stupid and corrupt—for the whole world to see.
I vaguely remember from a few years ago that some group was trying to use the 1989 flag-burning decision as a justification for protesting in the nude.
They got around the common sense objection to an act as speech by calling it `symbolic speech’.
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does
Does that so called free speech include destroying the Marine Memorial of the flag raising at Iwo Jima. Does that so called free speech include disrupting the changing of the guard at Arlington? Does that so called free speech include blowing up the Washington , or Lincoln, or Jefferson Memorials ? Where does the “free speech” of burning our flag, symbol of our nation, stop?
Building a temple in my back yard is also symbolic speech. :>)
Physical assault of a flag burner should also be considered free speech.
If you consider the American Flag nothing but a piece of fabric, you are not an American! Certainly not a patriot!
It's a natural substance... YOU think it smells bad but that's just your opinion... alcohol is worse... etc.
Yeah, and I think he really enjoys watching the top blow off of liberal heads.
I'll admit I enjoy it too.
Good idea
There's your basic problem.
When judges say it is speech, it just makes things more stupid.
If a person burns their own flag, and obeys all the fire and safety laws, then it should be legal. It’s called property rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.