The basis was the government had an interest in selective service cards not being burned, and suppression of free speech was not related to that interest. The big difference is the US has no interest that is disturbed by flag burning, and that is exactly why it is protected free speech. The key being directed at others, aka, fighting words. Flag burning has been ruled to not be fighting words. The basis always being that surpressing those types of speech does not limit the freedom of expression. They fail various tests for what constitutes free speech. Flag burning has been challenged on all these grounds and has been upheld everytime. Because of the two-tier test. Banning on flag burning is not considered to be well-defined and narrowly limited. And I ask again... do you want the US to model policy after places that ban flag burning like China and North Korea?
Millions of Americans see an interest in protecting the flag. The courts will protect the government's interest, but not the people's? I refer you to the incident that originally sparked this thread. Do you think the people who counter protested the flag burner considered his actions to be "fighting words?" Then what about "hate speech?" If I walked up to a group of black people and started shouting the "n-word", I'd likely get my azz kicked. And just as likely, the azz-kickers would not be convicted for assault, because I had somehow incited them. Millions of Americans find burning the flag to be incisive. Why should some people's feelings be worthy of protection and not others? You ask this or some other form of the question of everyone who wants to protect the flag. I've answered it already. Its a weak attempt to paint our sense of patriotism as being un-American.
hate speech/crime laws are unconstitutional as well. my hope is that one day the government will realize this.
You not understanding the basis for rulings you cite is not my problem. The crux of it is this... the government needs the Selective Service card to do some kind of something. That is the government interest the court was basing its ruling on. All the flag does is wave in the air looking cool. Nobody needs it for anything. The government isn't going to squash someone's right to expression because millions of people like looking at decorated pieces of fabric waving in the breeze. I don't know what they considered them, but because they were not directed at anyone they don't meet the definition. What are you talking about? Of course they would be charged, and cprobably convicted. Don't you remeber the Jena Six incident? Provoking someone with words does not give them a get out of jail free card. The first amendment question would be about what the government did to you because of your words. Nobody's feelings are protected. The freedom of expressions means a flag burner can burn the flag and the government can't punish them. I am calling it out for exactly what it is. You don't like the way some other dude expresses himself so you want the government to beat up on em. That is the most un-American thing imaginable. In America we have freedoms. Sometimes we don't like the application of those freedoms, but that is the price we pay for liberty. Ya ever here the Voltaire quote: That is the right answer.
Then they should honor the flag code. It is made just for them. People like martin have no problem dishonoring the flag but that's OK in this country. One mans reverential icon is another man's symbol of evil big government. The price we pay for freedom is having to put up with douchebags and their dishonorable sillyness.
to be fair i wouldnt burn the flag, i cant be bothered. but i like when others do it. i am too lazy to put together any sort of spectacle. but i do think it is important that we always recognize the difference between what is important, and what is merely a symbol of something important.
They aren't getting rid of them all the way; that's still the headgear with the service uniform (blues), or the bus driver cap, depending on the event. I like the blues better than the greens, but there's something about those khakis that still look great, especially in jump boots.
See my post to Red. Didn't get rid of them all the way away, but at least we don't have to wear that crap in ASUs. Also, name tags, rank, and badges can be sewed on; only patches will remain velcro. Effective date is today. Now all that's left is getting rid of that stupid, good-for-hiding-nowhere-except-a-gravel-parking-lot ASU pattern and go to multicam. Dempsey was our speaker at CGSC graduation. Everything I've heard about him is he's really down to earth, and he showed that on Friday. Too bad he won't remain, but Odierno is the frontrunner for the CoS. Glad it's not Chiarelli-that guy doesn't deserve to be in front of troops, much less CoS.
Khaki looks military, even when it's wrinkled, dirty and doesn't have a patch on it. Too bad the beret isn't completely gone. The old billed cap looked very military with the greens, even the c**t hat looked better than that damned beret.
Flag burning is childish and for third world nitwits. I can think of no better way to show one's solidarity with the *********s of the world. So burn away, fags.
