Students teach hippie about the 1st Amendment. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Students teach hippie about the 1st Amendment.


ronduke
05-12-2011, 03:44
LSU Student Attempting to Burn Flag Chased Away by Patriots Chanting "Go to Hell, Hippie"

http://punditpress.blogspot.com/2011/05/video-student-attempting-to-burn-flag.html

txleapd
05-12-2011, 05:15
:patriot:

eracer
05-12-2011, 05:57
What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

MeefZah
05-12-2011, 06:16
What was he protesting, exactly?

RussP
05-12-2011, 06:29
What was he protesting, exactly?http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/11/lsu-student-surrounded-thousands-protesters-attempting-burn-american-flag/Haas organized the protest in response to the arrest of fellow LSU student Isaac Eslava, who was charged last week for taking the American flag at the Baton Rouge campus’ historic War Memorial and burning it hours after news of Usama bin Laden’s killing by U.S. Navy Seals.
The 10-by-15 flag burned by Eslava flew atop a 102-foot pole 24 hours a day at the campus and honors all the war dead from LSU. Police said there was about $7,530 worth of damage at the memorial and called it very "coincidental" that the event took place so soon after bin Laden's death.
“I think that (Haas') goal from this protest was to have LSU drop charges (against Eslava) and handle the matter internally,” Ballard said.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/11/lsu-student-surrounded-thousands-protesters-attempting-burn-american-flag/#ixzz1M8lCpNQkFollowing Haas' fiasco...Haas' protest was followed by a separate peaceful assembly led by LSU student government president Cody Wells. In front of a crowd gathered around the campus’ flagpole, Wells read the history behind the American flag and led the audience in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and singing the national anthem.Wells went on to say, “My main message behind all of this is that it’s time for my generation and our society to start speaking up so that the minority voice does not always seem like the loudest voice,” Wells said. “(Haas) did have the right to burn the flag, but it was not an honorable thing for him to do and our student body and fellow Louisianans made that very clear today as they rallied on campus to show support for our county.”

See, some kids do have their heads screwed on right.

David Armstrong
05-12-2011, 09:58
LSU Student Attempting to Burn Flag Chased Away by Patriots Chanting "Go to Hell, Hippie"

http://punditpress.blogspot.com/2011/05/video-student-attempting-to-burn-flag.html
Not quite chased away. LSU PD removed him for his own safety after some of the counter-protesters became violent. I certainly don't condone his actions, but the "patriots" didn't come off that well, IMO. A counter-protest is one thing, stifling free speech by use of force or violence is something else entirely, IMO.

BamaTrooper
05-12-2011, 10:14
Not quite chased away. LSU PD removed him for his own safety after some of the counter-protesters became violent. I certainly don't condone his actions, but the "patriots" didn't come off that well, IMO. A counter-protest is one thing, stifling free speech by use of force or violence is something else entirely, IMO.

The government didn't stifle his free speech, they don't have a right to; his fellow students on the other hand can't violate his right to free speech because he has no protection against it.

I can't view the video, so I cna't see the "violence". Did they touch him or just threaten it?

ETA- after reading the Fox piece, I wonder what actions resulted in the use of combative as a description for the crowd. He moved, the crowd followed and the police acted in an abundance of caution to move him away.

Water balloons- classic

Cav
05-12-2011, 10:32
Not quite chased away. LSU PD removed him for his own safety after some of the counter-protesters became violent. I certainly don't condone his actions, but the "patriots" didn't come off that well, IMO. A counter-protest is one thing, stifling free speech by use of force or violence is something else entirely, IMO.

If Soldier's are expected to fight and die to protect our flag, the American flag, is it wrong for others to protect it as well?

Did he have permit for an open fire?

What does the law for arson state?

IMHO if you are in an area that has a large group of people, and you do a dumb act, you deserve the whooping that follows. Burn a flag in front of Soldiers, be a white guy and use the N word in front of a large group of black people, use the word ***** in font of a group of women. Hate speech is hate speech. The first Amendment only covers some speech, not all speech.

Morris
05-12-2011, 11:44
Well, unlike China, the cops didn't drag him away or beat him. American action as it should be, even if boisterous.

And yes, reckless burning, burning without enclosure and some other charges come to mind should we encounter something similar.

Hack
05-12-2011, 22:08
I am of the mind if a person wants to so much do damage to the flag representing the country that I serve, then the person in particular should simply enfold one's self into the loving embraces of the burning flag, and be consumed therewith.

lawman800
05-13-2011, 02:25
I respect and will protect the right of someone who wants to exercise their 1st Amendment Right to burn our flag. I will also respect anyone who defends the honor of my country by beating the crap out of said flag burner.

I didn't see a thing by the way. Someone called my name and I turned away to look, thereby not seeing the alleged incident where the hippie flag burner got attacked.

kirgi08
05-13-2011, 09:14
:thumbsup:

Well said.'08.

cowboywannabe
05-13-2011, 09:55
wha fraking wha.....i have no problem with somebody getting the schiet kicked out of them for disgracing our flag on purpose.


dont like? get the frack out.

Gator Monroe
05-13-2011, 09:58
So many of the under 40 crowd has been brainwarshed into good little Progressives who have issues with The Racist Bigoted Homophobic slave owning coloniailist imperialist American flag and want it changed ...:rofl:

David Armstrong
05-13-2011, 11:50
The government didn't stifle his free speech, they don't have a right to; his fellow students on the other hand can't violate his right to free speech because he has no protection against it.
Free speech can be stifled without consideration of a rights issue.
I can't view the video, so I cna't see the "violence". Did they touch him or just threaten it?
Objects were thrown. I thought the water balloons were cute, but then it escalated to full water bottles and then soda cans and other hard objects.

David Armstrong
05-13-2011, 11:55
If Soldier's are expected to fight and die to protect our flag, the American flag, is it wrong for others to protect it as well?
Depends entirely on how they protect it and other considerations.

Did he have permit for an open fire?

What does the law for arson state?
Not needed and irrelevant, IIRC. The area he was in is sort of a free-speech zone where individual demonstrations and such are allowed, and there would have been no arson.
IMHO if you are in an area that has a large group of people, and you do a dumb act, you deserve the whooping that follows. Burn a flag in front of Soldiers, be a white guy and use the N word in front of a large group of black people, use the word ***** in font of a group of women. Hate speech is hate speech. The first Amendment only covers some speech, not all speech.
We'll have to disagree. Might does not make right, and given that the Court has specifically ruled flag burning as protected speech hard to argue against that. I find it problematic at best, and I like I said, I think the water balloons were a brilliant idea as counter-protest. but when it becomes violent that is a different ballgame, IMO.

GackMan
05-13-2011, 19:33
I think it is brilliant.

Free speech for everyone... What? Surprised that not everyone agrees with you?

CJStudent
05-13-2011, 20:18
I think it is brilliant.

Free speech for everyone... What? Surprised that not everyone agrees with you?

And therein is the crux of the issue he failed to realize.

EOD3
05-13-2011, 22:33
I am of the mind if a person wants to so much do damage to the flag representing the country that I serve, then the person in particular should simply enfold one's self into the loving embraces of the burning flag, and be consumed therewith.


Eloquence in action, well said Hack. :cool:

Pinki
05-14-2011, 10:00
That is the best news I've heard all week! GO LSU students!

wrenrj1
05-14-2011, 10:06
All that was missing was pitch forks and torches and that would have been the PERFECT Mob! Good for them.

Gator Monroe
05-15-2011, 10:35
When the Israeli Consul Guy tried to Talk at UC Irvine the Pro Arab /Anti-Zionist far left mob tried to chase the guy off Campus too ... 1st. Amendment :rofl:

silverado_mick
05-15-2011, 17:06
The flag belonged to someone else (in this case LSU, correct?) therefore some sort of criminal mischief/criminal damaging or something should apply even if nothing fire related does. At the very least I'm sure he obstructed passageways, risked a catastrophe, or violated something in Louisiana's disorderly conduct statute that could get him at least paper. Youns guys gotta get more creative n'at!

EOD3
05-16-2011, 10:14
Dirt-bag has got to drop that burning flag sometime, NOW he's burning/defacing/vandalizing school property... :steamed:

Cav
05-17-2011, 09:38
Texas has laws about burning flags, we dont care about the other 49 states, but we do care about America and Texas;

42.11. DESTRUCTION OF FLAG. (a) A person commits an
offense if the person intentionally or knowingly damages, defaces,
mutilates, or burns the flag of the United States or the State of
Texas.
(b) In this section, "flag" means an emblem, banner, or
other standard or a copy of an emblem, standard, or banner that is
an official or commonly recognized depiction of the flag of the
United States or of this state and is capable of being flown from a
staff of any character or size. The term does not include a
representation of a flag on a written or printed document, a
periodical, stationery, a painting or photograph, or an article of
clothing or jewelry.
(c) It is an exception to the application of this section
that the act that would otherwise constitute an offense is done in
conformity with statutes of the United States or of this state
relating to the proper disposal of damaged flags.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 27, § 1, eff. Sept.
1, 1989. Renumbered from V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 42.14 by Acts
1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


;)

David Armstrong
05-17-2011, 15:20
Texas has laws about burning flags, we dont care about the other 49 states, but we do care about America and Texas;
;)
Actually many states have laws about burning flags, but they are generally unenforceable due to Texas v. Johnson.

David Armstrong
05-17-2011, 15:23
The flag belonged to someone else (in this case LSU, correct?) therefore some sort of criminal mischief/criminal damaging or something should apply even if nothing fire related does. At the very least I'm sure he obstructed passageways, risked a catastrophe, or violated something in Louisiana's disorderly conduct statute that could get him at least paper. Youns guys gotta get more creative n'at!
No, it was his flag, and no, he committed no violation of anything. Some folks actually do consider that free speech (even repugnant speech) is important, and LSU has set up a place that is pretty much an open free speech zone specifically for that reason.

silverado_mick
05-17-2011, 15:34
No, it was his flag, and no, he committed no violation of anything. Some folks actually do consider that free speech (even repugnant speech) is important, and LSU has set up a place that is pretty much an open free speech zone specifically for that reason.

I was confused because of the previous weeks incident where an LSU student burned a flag he remoed from a war memorial. That student was charged appropriately, which is what this student was protesting. My bad, yo.

On the other hand I sure hope that you aren't implying that I actually don't consider free speech (or any Constitutionally protected right) to be important, because if that's what you are saying (as your tone seems to suggest) then you and I are about to have a very serious problem. As it stands right now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that is not what you were trying to imply.

Cav
05-18-2011, 00:44
Actually many states have laws about burning flags, but they are generally unenforceable due to Texas v. Johnson.

Unenforceable or non prosecutable?

They are on the books, an arrest could be made, but a court might not prosecute.

But then again DOC language or gesture should be unenforceable as well right? Whole first Amendment thing and all. But what if another is offended? Sticks and stones?

David Armstrong
05-18-2011, 10:15
I was confused because of the previous weeks incident where an LSU student burned a flag he remoed from a war memorial. That student was charged appropriately, which is what this student was protesting. My bad, yo.
No problem, I figured that was probably it.
On the other hand I sure hope that you aren't implying that I actually don't consider free speech (or any Constitutionally protected right) to be important, because if that's what you are saying (as your tone seems to suggest) then you and I are about to have a very serious problem. As it stands right now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that is not what you were trying to imply.
Well, perhaps then you can explain what you meant by "At the very least I'm sure he obstructed passageways, risked a catastrophe, or violated something in Louisiana's disorderly conduct statute that could get him at least paper. Youns guys gotta get more creative n'at!" as that seems to indicate a belief that his free speech rights should be questioned and LE should try harder to bust his guy. If I read it wrong my apologies.

David Armstrong
05-18-2011, 10:19
Unenforceable or non prosecutable?

They are on the books, an arrest could be made, but a court might not prosecute.
Someone may correct me, but IIRC if the Court has ruled a specific act to be protected then one violates civil rights if one intentionally arrests for that known protected act. Are you suggesting that LE should arrest folks on laws they know are invalid and will not be prosecuted simply to harrass someone because we don't like their politics?
But then again DOC language or gesture should be unenforceable as well right? Whole first Amendment thing and all. But what if another is offended? Sticks and stones?
First Amendment is not about sticks and stones, DOC gestures, etc. it is about protecting political speech, and speech in particular that many find offensive.

Cav
05-18-2011, 11:01
Someone may correct me, but IIRC if the Court has ruled a specific act to be protected then one violates civil rights if one intentionally arrests for that known protected act. Are you suggesting that LE should arrest folks on laws they know are invalid and will not be prosecuted simply to harrass someone because we don't like their politics?

First Amendment is not about sticks and stones, DOC gestures, etc. it is about protecting political speech, and speech in particular that many find offensive.

If a person goes outside of Fort Hood TX (say Killeen TX) and burns a flag in front of say 500-10,000 soldiers and patriots, would you say arresting the flag burner was done to harrass, or save his ass?

Sometimes an arrest is a way to save people from what might be no crime on either side in the eyes of the court. What do you think a jury would say when they try 10-20 guys that beat or killed a guy for burning an American flag? I mean do you think the jury of the local area will find them guilty of a crime?

Some places will support some things. In Texas many jury's (the people) have set the real laws for everything from speeding to murder.

The State of Texas has had many years to take the flag burning laws off the books.

David Armstrong
05-18-2011, 12:19
If a person goes outside of Fort Hood TX (say Killeen TX) and burns a flag in front of say 500-10,000 soldiers and patriots, would you say arresting the flag burner was done to harrass, or save his ass?
First, I find the idea that that a bunch of soldiers would attack a person in a way that would endanger them for exercising their 1st amendment rights to be rather sad. Second, why would the flag burner be arrested for anything? Or are you suggesting the we in LE should just arrest people without any legal basis if it makes us feel good?
Sometimes an arrest is a way to save people from what might be no crime on either side in the eyes of the court.
Umm, if there is no crime then there should be no arrest. Remember that pesky little thing called probable cause?? The LEOs at LSU managed to get the flag burner out of there without arresting him. Maybe you need to take a cue from them??
What do you think a jury would say when they try 10-20 guys that beat or killed a guy for burning an American flag? I mean do you think the jury of the local area will find them guilty of a crime?
Well, one sort of hopes that a jury will follow the law. It sounds to me like you are trying to argue that the only free speech that should be protected is speech that you agree with, and the stuff you don't like shouldn't get 1st Amendment protection.
Some places will support some things. In Texas many jury's (the people) have set the real laws for everything from speeding to murder.

The State of Texas has had many years to take the flag burning laws off the books.
Sure, and Texas, much like many other states, has politicians who are more worried about getting elected than anything else, so they don't do things that can give an opponent any advantage. But that still doesn't change anything, which is that burning the flag is protected free speech. I don't particularly like it either, but I don't pick and choose what laws I enforce or how I enforce them based on whether I agree with the law or not.

BicycleDay43
05-18-2011, 12:50
At one point there was a guy in ACU's chewing out the little scum bag. Made my day. :wavey:

1 old 0311
05-18-2011, 13:53
A counter-protest is one thing, stifling free speech by use of force or violence is something else entirely, IMO.



Stopping ARSON is "stifling free speech?" You got a REAL strange outlook on life bud.:shocked::shocked::shocked:

Spiffums
05-18-2011, 17:31
Was Cartman there?

Cav
05-18-2011, 18:56
Umm, if there is no crime then there should be no arrest. Remember that pesky little thing called probable cause?? The LEOs at LSU managed to get the flag burner out of there without arresting him. Maybe you need to take a cue from them??

Sure, and Texas, much like many other states, has politicians who are more worried about getting elected than anything else, so they don't do things that can give an opponent any advantage. But that still doesn't change anything, which is that burning the flag is protected free speech. I don't particularly like it either, but I don't pick and choose what laws I enforce or how I enforce them based on whether I agree with the law or not.


I never said no crime, I said knowing what the courts in an area will accept. An arrest is not bad if charges are dropped. I thought this was police 101. As long as there is PC police can arrest. Courts can drop charges as well. That does not mean an arrest is bad, if there is a law on the books that supports the arrest.

So you never passed up a violator that you felt was a waste of time to deal with, based on a law you thought was weak?

I can only guess you do not work on patrol or for a city.

David Armstrong
05-18-2011, 22:48
Stopping ARSON is "stifling free speech?" You got a REAL strange outlook on life bud.:shocked::shocked::shocked:
It might help if folks knew the facts before commenting. There was no arson, and had he burned the flag there would not have been an arson. He was violating no laws.

David Armstrong
05-18-2011, 22:54
I never said no crime, I said knowing what the courts in an area will accept. An arrest is not bad if charges are dropped. I thought this was police 101. As long as there is PC police can arrest.
A person exercising their rights according to the standards established by the Court does not give any PC. THAT is police 101. But whether the charges are dropped or not does not impact if the arrest is bad. That is also police 101.
Courts can drop charges as well. That does not mean an arrest is bad, if there is a law on the books that supports the arrest.
If the law has been declared unconstitutional, yes, it means the arrest is bad.
So you never passed up a violator that you felt was a waste of time to deal with, based on a law you thought was weak?
Sorry, that one doesn't make much sense.
I can only guess you do not work on patrol or for a city.
You guessed wrong.

DaBigBR
05-19-2011, 00:18
Gents, I don't think we're going to agree on this one, especially since Dave is so much smarter than the rest of you. ;)

David Armstrong
05-19-2011, 07:40
Gents, I don't think we're going to agree on this one, especially since Dave is so much smarter than the rest of you. ;)
Heck, BR, you don't have to be smart (or at least you shouldn't have to be) to understand that the 1st Amendment applies to all equally and protects unpopular speech as well as popular speech.

steveksux
05-19-2011, 08:09
I'm in the minority on this issue, but here goes, ahem..... flame away if you must... :supergrin:

"The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning"http://www.usa-flag-site.org/faq/disposal.shtml

So if the proper way to dispose of a flag is burning it, its hard to claim burning a flag in protest is any different except for the message the act is intended to convey.

So I actually agree with SCOTUS on calling it a free speech issue. The difference between burning it properly and in protest is the message.

As long as its his flag and doesn't break any other laws, I disagree with it, but support his right to do so.

I'm sympathetic to arguments that if someone were to do an interpretive dance on his head for doing so to convey displeasure with burning it, it might be considered a free speech issue as well... :rofl: Sort of a setting fire (to the flag) in a crowded theater style exception. I like the water balloon idea too, actually... very creative.

But seriously, in general I would argue that the symbol of freedom is not more important than the freedom it symbolizes.

Randy

Kegs
05-19-2011, 08:40
It's interesting to see most of you care more about the flag than than the freedoms it represents.

I consider this a pathetic failure of traditional American values.

Ben Franklin, John Hancock, Sam Adams and their cohorts would have dropped their heads in sorrow to see how displaced America has become from the incredible place they founded as a fight to get away from the King who taxed without representation.

The "hippie" probably has a thing or two to teach the lot of you about being an American. OBL was not found and tried, he was found and executed - that is if you believe the story.

Ops throughout history like this were off the books - as to not make America look bad. Now nobody seems to give a rip about justice, tyranny has become so popular that it is scarcely challenged.

Keep it up people, you will have the country you deserve.

actionshooter10
05-19-2011, 14:36
Cav,

I don't agree with dave but I'm wondering if we can still arrest for 21.06 too.

Bren
05-19-2011, 16:19
We'll have to disagree. Might does not make right, and given that the Court has specifically ruled flag burning as protected speech hard to argue against that. I find it problematic at best, and I like I said, I think the water balloons were a brilliant idea as counter-protest. but when it becomes violent that is a different ballgame, IMO.

The supreme court has ruled that flag burning is protected against interference by the government, not by citizens.

As for might making right - might is nothing less than the power to say what is right, so as a philosophical side comment, might literally "make right" and nothing else ever has. Assume the rules of any religion as a guide to what is right, for example.

Bren
05-19-2011, 16:22
So if the proper way to dispose of a flag is burning it, its hard to claim burning a flag in protest is any different except for the message the act is intended to convey.

So I actually agree with SCOTUS on calling it a free speech issue. The difference between burning it properly and in protest is the message.

As long as its his flag and doesn't break any other laws, I disagree with it, but support his right to do so.

I'm sympathetic to arguments that if someone were to do an interpretive dance on his head for doing so to convey displeasure with burning it, it might be considered a free speech issue as well... :rofl: Sort of a setting fire (to the flag) in a crowded theater style exception. I like the water balloon idea too, actually... very creative.

But seriously, in general I would argue that the symbol of freedom is not more important than the freedom it symbolizes.


And, like freedom in general, free speech is a protection against interference BY THE GOVERNMENT. The U.S. constitution doesn't protect you against citizens, corporations or anyone else who is not THE GOVERNMENT. Yes, flag burning is protected speech under the 1st Amendment, but if you know that, you should at least know the first Amendment doesn't prohibit the people in the crowd from interfering with speech.

Cav
05-19-2011, 17:01
Cav,

I don't agree with dave but I'm wondering if we can still arrest for 21.06 too.

As far as I know Lawrence v. Texas made it a violation of rights to arrest for homo coduct, that is clear. I know of no clear rule on 42.11. I will act in good faith based on the situation as I see it, for what best serves the public.

Funeral protests are also covered by state law, and IMHO the Feds have no legal say on our states laws.

steveksux
05-19-2011, 18:38
And, like freedom in general, free speech is a protection against interference BY THE GOVERNMENT. The U.S. constitution doesn't protect you against citizens, corporations or anyone else who is not THE GOVERNMENT. Yes, flag burning is protected speech under the 1st Amendment, but if you know that, you should at least know the first Amendment doesn't prohibit the people in the crowd from interfering with speech.

So you agree that people in the crowd should be able to interfere with your "right" to carry guns if they don't like them either?

Randy

DaBigBR
05-19-2011, 18:49
So you agree that people in the crowd should be able to interfere with your "right" to carry guns if they don't like them either?

Randy

He's not saying that at all. He's making the oft-forgotten point that the constitution and bill of rights do not protect people from people, they protect people from the government. It's also worth pointing out that Bren is an attorney and speaking with more authority than of the folks in this thread.

David Armstrong
05-20-2011, 10:05
The supreme court has ruled that flag burning is protected against interference by the government, not by citizens.
Agreed, which is why I find it troubling to see some arguing that LE should ignore that and try to trump up something to prevent flag burning or other unpopular speech. And as long as other citizens interfere lawfully, I'm all for it. As I said, I think whoever came up with the water balloons was brilliant. When it becomes violent in a manner that could injure folks, however, I think that is unacceptable.
As for might making right - might is nothing less than the power to say what is right, so as a philosophical side comment, might literally "make right" and nothing else ever has. Assume the rules of any religion as a guide to what is right, for example.
Got to disagree. Might is the power to enforce your will, right or wrong. You can feel something is wrong and everyone can agree that it is wrong, but sufficient might can insure that it is done anyway.

gemeinschaft
05-20-2011, 11:05
Flame away, but this is my take on it.

I have very close friends who have died while protecting this Nation and everything that the flag stands for. Law/no law, Protected Speech/Unprotected speech - that is not the issue for me.

Burning the American Flag to destroy it in accordance with the proper disposal of a damaged flag is not done in the public to draw attention and be direspectful, it is out of respect for what the flag represents.

Burning a flag to cause a public spectacle and make a statement is no different than whipping out and urinating on all of my buddies' graves at the same time.

There is a line that should not be crossed and this student and others who insist on burning the American Flag should be given a one way ticket to any country they please and their American citizenship taken away.

Flame away, but I take that very personally.

David Armstrong
05-20-2011, 11:47
FWIW, I take it personally also. I have friends who died while protecting this Nation and the Constitution and everything the flag stands for, to include the rights of people to exercise their liberty by expressing themselves through unpopular acts such as burning the flag.
Burning a flag to cause a public spectacle and make a statement is no different than whipping out and urinating on all of my buddies' graves at the same time.
It is actually quite different. One is a lawful protest, specifically protected by the Constitution according to the Court. The other is more than likely an illegal act prohibited by law. Both are reprehensible acts, IMO, but some acts, reprehensible or not, are considered valid forms of protest.
There is a line that should not be crossed and this student and others who insist on burning the American Flag should be given a one way ticket to any country they please and their American citizenship taken away.
And it is statements like that which cause many of us who are strong believers in freedom, individual rights and the Constitution to be so very thankful we are a nation of laws. As the Court said in Texas v. Johnson, "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." And I agree with the Court that if the flag truly does symbolize the greatnesss of the nation, then "We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own, no better way to counter a flag burner's message than by saluting the flag that burns, no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by -- as one witness here did -- according its remains a respectful burial. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents." (emphasis added).

EOD3
05-20-2011, 17:57
You know Dave, if we assume your "professors position" on this subject represents your true feelings/legal position, I'd expect you to fight for the "RIGHTS" of all people being persecuted by various government (and government sponsored) groups and organizations.

I look forward to hearing your defense of such subjects as the Confederate Flag, the dictionary of words "We The People" are forbidden to use, the "thought crimes" being built into our judicial system, the forfeiture of property without due process, etc... Or are you merely a zealot for the "leftist" point of view?

I represent myself as a "Constitutionalist" but, the complete BULL **** the lace panties crowd miraculously find in the non-existent fine print can only be seen as a direct assault on the "plain English" intent of our founding documents.

Obviously, I think burning the symbol that flies above our country, and the graves of all the men and women (my comrades) who gained and maintained the "supposed" right of the "America is evil" subversives to desecrate our countries flag, should be every bit as criminal as destroying any other part of our nation. Just my .25, inflation...

David Armstrong
05-20-2011, 18:21
You know Dave, if we assume your "professors position" on this subject represents your true feelings/legal position, I'd expect you to fight for the "RIGHTS" of all people being persecuted by various government (and government sponsored) groups and organizations.
It is not just my "professors opinion" it is the same opinion I had as a working street cop and the military. I fought, at least in part, for the right of jerks to be jerks, no matter how unpopular their position was.
I look forward to hearing your defense of such subjects as the Confederate Flag, the dictionary of words "We The People" are forbidden to use, the "thought crimes" being built into our judicial system, the forfeiture of property without due process, etc... Or are you merely a zealot for the "leftist" point of view?
Huh??? Sorry, didn't realize that being a supporter of the 1st Amendment and personal liberty was a leftist point of view. But briefly, I think anyone who wants to fly the Confederate flag should be able to do so, just as anyone who wants to burn the Confederate Flag should be able to do so. I'm not aware of a dictionary of words that "We The People" are forbidden to use, but if there is one I would find it rather silly. Similarly in regards to "thought crimes" being built into the judicial system. Perhaps you could provide some actual specifics instead of vague talking points? As for property forfeiture without due process I am opposed to it, as is the law.
I represent myself as a "Constitutionalist" but, the complete BULL **** the lace panties crowd miraculously find in the non-existent fine print can only be seen as a direct assault on the "plain English" intent of our founding documents.
Again, a nice talking point but so vague as to be pretty much unusable for purposes of a rational conversation. In fact, it seems rather confusing, since you appear to engaging in a direct assault on the "plain English" intent of one of our founding documents, which clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...."
Obviously, I think burning the symbol that flies above our country, and the graves of all the men and women (my comrades) who gained and maintained the "supposed" right of the "America is evil" subversives to desecrate our countries flag, should be every bit as criminal as destroying any other part of our nation. Just my .25, inflation...
So you think that the 1st Amendment should be done away with and the right to free speech should be criminalized. Thank you for clarifying that point.:shocked:

Cav
05-20-2011, 20:34
The First Amendment
"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."

-- Amendment One, Bill of Rights, United States Constitution


The History of the First Amendment
Thomas Jefferson once claimed, “A democracy cannot be both ignorant and free.” This was the commonly held attitude of the “enlightened” men who settled the United States. The framers of the Constitution believed that if the new U.S. citizens failed to take care to share information completely among themselves, they would be worse off than they had been as subjects of the British monarchy they fled.

The new American settlers brought with them a desire for democracy and openness. They left behind a history of tyranny and official control of information. Using this experience as their guide, the constitutional fathers wrote into their new Constitution a Bill of Rights, which contained the First Amendment.

The Bill of Rights consists of the first ten amendments, which contain procedural and substantive guarantees of individual liberties and limits upon government control and intervention.

The First Amendment, perhaps the best known of these freedoms and protections, prohibits the establishment of a state-supported church, requires the separation of church and state, and guarantees freedom of worship, of speech and the press, the rights of peaceable assembly, association and petition.

While some Supreme Court justices have declared that First Amendment freedoms are absolute or occupy a preferred position, the Court has routinely held they may be limited so as to protect the rights of others (e.g. libel, privacy), or to guard against subversion of the government and the spreading of dissension in wartime. Thus, the Court’s majority has remained firm — the First Amendment rights are not absolute.

Only two Supreme Court justices, Justice Hugo Black and Justice William O. Douglas, insisted the First Amendment rights are absolute and their dissenting opinions fell to the wayside. Most court cases involving the First Amendment involve weighing two concerns: public vs. private. Also, the Supreme Court has often defined certain speech, also known as “at risk speech,” as being unprotected by the First Amendment:

Burning draft cards to protest draft — prohibited because of superior governmental interest.
Words likely to incite imminent violence, termed “fighting words.”
Words immediately jeopardizing national security.
Newspaper publishing false and defamatory material — libel.
Freedom of speech and expression is not a luxury of democracy, but it should be recognized as a necessity. In order for a democratic form of government to function and continue to exist, it must have free expression and educated criticism. Most of the development of the United States’ free society has come about because of public debate and disclosure, in both oratory and written form.

EOD3
05-21-2011, 20:50
It is not just my "professors opinion" it is the same opinion I had as a working street cop and the military. I fought, at least in part, for the right of jerks to be jerks, no matter how unpopular their position was.

Your denigration of people simply exercising their Constitutional right to disagree with your opinion(s) is telling.

Huh??? Sorry, didn't realize that being a supporter of the 1st Amendment and personal liberty was a leftist point of view. But briefly, I think anyone who wants to fly the Confederate flag should be able to do so, just as anyone who wants to burn the Confederate Flag should be able to do so. I'm not aware of a dictionary of words that "We The People" are forbidden to use, but if there is one I would find it rather silly. Similarly in regards to "thought crimes" being built into the judicial system. Perhaps you could provide some actual specifics instead of vague talking points? As for property forfeiture without due process I am opposed to it, as is the law.

Pretending not to know what I'm talking about is beneath you Dave. You know, or should know, the "First" has been held not to protect a good many forms of "offensive" speech. I'm simply suggesting you should embrace the entire amendment, not just the "I want to desecrate flags" freedom normally supported by the "left"

Again, a nice talking point but so vague as to be pretty much unusable for purposes of a rational conversation. In fact, it seems rather confusing, since you appear to engaging in a direct assault on the "plain English" intent of one of our founding documents, which clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech....

We obviously differ on what constitutes "original intent". I propose any individual pretending desecration was protected speech would have been dangling from a tree before the smoke died away.

So you think that the 1st Amendment should be done away with and the right to free speech should be criminalized. Thank you for clarifying that point.:shocked:

Now that's just pathetic. I didn't say any such thing, you know it, and I suspect any intellectually honest person reading our posts knows it. Nice try though...

David Armstrong
05-22-2011, 11:48
Your denigration of people simply exercising their Constitutional right to disagree with your opinion(s) is telling.
Sorry, I consider flag burners to be jerks. They are protected in what they do, but they are still jerks.
Pretending not to know what I'm talking about is beneath you Dave.
No pretense. I answered what was clear, I pointed out what was so vague as to be essentially unusable and asked you to clarify. If you can't clarify what you mean, that is fine, but if you can't figure out what you are actually talking about it is a bit unfair to expect me to guess at it. So, no pretense...I honestly am not aware of "the dictionary of words "We The People" are forbidden to use" or what "the "thought crimes" being built into our judicial system" means. If you can direct me that dictionary, or identify a thought crime being built into the system (or even tell us what a "thought crime" is under the law) I'll be glad to take a look.
You know, or should know, the "First" has been held not to protect a good many forms of "offensive" speech.
Sure. I have never argued otherwise. But also you know, or should know, the First has been held to protect a good many forms of "offensive" speech. But no right is absolute, as Cav pointed out in his post.
I'm simply suggesting you should embrace the entire amendment, not just the "I want to desecrate flags" freedom normally supported by the "left"
Don't know where you are getting the idea that I don't support the entire amendment, as I do. It seems you are the one wanting to do a "pick and choose" with the Amendment, saying some political speech is OK and some is not.
We obviously differ on what constitutes "original intent". I propose any individual pretending desecration was protected speech would have been dangling from a tree before the smoke died away.
And I propose that is a nice guess without much to support it.
Now that's just pathetic. I didn't say any such thing, you know it, and I suspect any intellectually honest person reading our posts knows it. Nice try though...
Here is what you said:
>>Obviously, I think burning the symbol that flies above our country, and the graves of all the men and women (my comrades) who gained and maintained the "supposed" right of the "America is evil" subversives to desecrate our countries flag, should be every bit as criminal as destroying any other part of our nation.<<
So yes, you did say it. Maybe you didn't mean what you said, but I can only go by what you post.