I guess I can't understand how you could defend it then, if you hate it. Freedom of Speech or not, it is classless and disrespectful and frankly, if I were ever to witness somebody burning a flag, I would probably end up in jail afterwards. But it would have been well worth it.
Again that is the point of having freedom of speech. If only speech we like is protected then thats not much of a freedom. Thats like Henry Ford saying you can have any color car you want so long as its black.
Exactly. It is only a symbol of something that can't be destroyed. Still, the flag is a national symbol and a powerful one and burning it publicly to draw attention should be considered an attempt to incite a crowd into an unruly mob. Salty would try to kick someone's ass if he witnessed it and most of us would back him up. Inciting violence by burning a flag, displaying aborted fetuses, and publicly mocking the families of Iraq war casualties just go way beyond "freedom of expression." It's trying to start a fight. It should be illegal on this basis alone. Some guy is perfectly welcome to make himself a flag that says "Bush a fool and so am I" and burn it publicly if he wants to. But if he burns our flag publicly, then he's inciting violence which is a crime. If dissenters can't express themselves without insulting and inflaming other citizens, then their freedom of speech imposes on the constitutional rights of others. Freedom of expression must be non-violent to be legally valid. Otherwise it is the road to anarchy. --- 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. -- 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
If person A is burning a flag and Person B attacks him for it, then Person A is a victim of assault. He is not inciting violence. The actions of another or not the responsibility of a protester. The courts are very clear on this. No one here is condoning flag burning (except martin) or saying its a good idea. It is however protected speech. The courts has ruled on this several times. If speech that offends to the point of physical retaliation is banned then the freedom of speech is useless.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I do think flag burning as an abstract political expression is protected as freedom of speech. And yes, assaulters are guilty of assault. But I also believe that public flag-burning in a mixed or hostile crowd can be construed as inciting a riot, which is a crime. Freedom of speech is constitutinally protected only if it is "peaceable" and lawful. The law recognizes the existence of "fighting words". If Person A uses such speech to pick a fight with Person B who then assaults him, then both are guilty of a crime. Legal definition of 'fighting words' Fighting words doctrine. The First Amendment doctrine that holds that certain utterances are not constitutionally protected as free speech if they are inherently likely to provoke a violent response from the audience. N.A.A.C.P. v. Clairborne Hardware Co., Miss., 458 U.S. 886, 102 S.Ct. 3409, 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982). Words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, having direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom, individually, remark is addressed. The test is what persons of common intelligence would understand to be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. City of Seattle v. Camby, 104 Wash.2d 49, 701 P.2d 499, 500. The "freedom of speech" protected by the Constitution is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances and there are well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which does not raise any constitutional problem, including the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031. SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
I understand you now. Clearly there is a difference in desecrating a flag at a public rally against a war and burning one near a soldiers funeral. Both are dispicable, but the only the former would be protected speech.
What? According to what or who? Tell that to the Chinese, Russians, Saudi's, too many to name others. What are you talking about?
I did, and most of it makes me sick. Love it or leave it.....What ever happened to the "Red Blooded Americans"? Raise your hand if you could watch someone burn our flag and not attempt to stop them. Everyone who raised their hands, consider yourself slapped. If you know it isn't right, and you don't attempt to stop it, you're just as guilty as the person doing it. Period. Don't feed me this crap about protected speech. That's just a fancy way of saying either you don't really care, or you're too big of a puss* to put a stop to it. I would say a little of both. Placing another flag above ours, on our soil, should be treason. You are publicly stating that another country will conquer us, and you support it. Martin, it was and is my duty to protect this country. I will defend her against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If someone is burning, or otherwise desecrating, the symbol of our country, then they are an enemy of my country. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all. And to anyone who believes that this act should be protected, I say, Go to hell.
