I believe it is a huge stretch that liberals use to say that allowing to desecrate the flag is freedom of speech.......I think its a traitorous act....
I think you know what the word desecrate means..........
I think you know what the word desecrate means..........
Of course I know that. That's the point...how are you going to outlaw flag-burning when you make exceptions like that?
Burning and desecrating are not the same thing.
If you support an amendment banning burning the flag, do you plan to lock up American Legion guys who loyally retire their flags by burning them in accordance with the Flag Code?
or...
If you support an amendment banning desecrating the flag, do you plan to lock up anyone who wears an American flag?
If you leftys want to make a political statement find another way...Don't burn or desecrate a symbol that brave men (and women 1069) have given their life to protect..........
If you leftys want to make a political statement find another way...Don't burn or desecrate a symbol that brave men (and women 1069) have given their life to protect..........
I believe the amendment he talking about is one that bans the disrespectful anti-Americans flag burning.
I like that definition. Foolish how some people think that any time you burn the flag, it automatically is insulting or it robs the flag of it’s sanctity.Hatuey said:To desecrate something is to rob it of it's sanctity or to insult it's sanctity.
I believe it is a huge stretch that liberals use to say that allowing to desecrate the flag is freedom of speech.......I think its a traitorous act....
If you leftys want to make a political statement find another way...Don't burn or desecrate a symbol that brave men (and women 1069) have given their life to protect..........
Fortunately, the Constitution disagrees with you. Don't you think that going against the Constitution is a traitorous act? If so, check your position on this.
Lighting something on fire is not speech.So banning a disrespectful form of flag burning is not unconstitutional.
speech - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education
1.
1. The faculty or act of speaking.
2. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.
3. A talk or public address: "The best impromptu speeches are the ones written well in advance" (Ruth Gordon).
4. A printed copy of such an address.
2. Something spoken; an utterance.
3. Vocal communication; conversation.
4.
1. A talk or public address: "The best impromptu speeches are the ones written well in advance" (Ruth Gordon).
2. A printed copy of such an address.
5. One's habitual manner or style of speaking.
6. The language or dialect of a nation or region: American speech.
7. The sounding of a musical instrument.
8. The study of oral communication, speech sounds, and vocal physiology.
9. Archaic Rumor.
The divisive issue of flag burning as a form of protest came before the Supreme Court in 1989, as it decided Texas v. Johnson. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Gregory Johnson for burning the flag by a vote of five to four. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. asserted that "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." Many in Congress vilified the decision of the Court. The House unanimously passed a resolution denouncing the Court; the Senate did the same in March 2000 when the vote fell four short of the required two-thirds majority. [1]. Congress passed a federal law barring flag burning, but the Supreme Court struck it down as well in United States v. Eichman (1990). Many attempts have been made to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to prohibit the desecration of the flag. Since 1995, the Flag Burning Amendment has consistently mustered sufficient votes to pass in the House of Representatives, but not in the Senate. In 2000, the Senate voted 63–37 in favor of the amendment, which fell four votes short of the requisite two-thirds majority. In 2006, another attempt fell one vote short.
And I already posted the two court cases that identify flag burning as protected free speech in Post #2. SCOTUS and the Constitution identify this as allowable under the first amendment.
****Hey Capitante, flag burning seems to be a big deal for you. Would you have a problem if someone were to burn that hideous looking cape on your avatar?
And I already posted the two court cases that identify flag burning as protected free speech in Post #2. SCOTUS and the Constitution identify this as allowable under the first amendment.
****Hey Capitante, flag burning seems to be a big deal for you. Would you have a problem if someone were to burn that hideous looking cape on your avatar?
I think it probably wouldn't bother him much unless he were wearing it at the time.:roll:
Fortunately, the Constitution disagrees with you. Don't you think that going against the Constitution is a traitorous act? If so, check your position on this.
You don't get it, NP. Our brave men an women fight and give their lives to protect our freedom to have the freedom of speech to burn the flag. You dishonor them by using them to propagandize your anti-free speech position.
And I already posted the two court cases that identify flag burning as protected free speech in Post #2. SCOTUS and the Constitution identify this as allowable under the first amendment.
Jamesrage's definition of speech is irrelevant to this topic. Hatuey's and my links regarding the law are relevant.
And I already posted the two court cases that identify flag burning as protected free speech in Post #2. SCOTUS and the Constitution identify this as allowable under the first amendment.
****Hey Capitante, flag burning seems to be a big deal for you. Would you have a problem if someone were to burn that hideous looking cape on your avatar?
Moderator's Warning:
adamanarch;530445[B said:]I think it boils down to a general lack of knowledge about the US Flag code. To wear the flag doesn't seem as disrespectful as setting it ablaze...and thus it's assumed that wearing it is not against the flag code.[/B]
Either way, I see flags as the property of those that buy them...and thus their use should be determined by their owners and not out-dated rhetoric and formailities.
A constitutional amendment would take away any loopholes provided by the first amendment...........
Glad to see that you view the first amendment as a "loophole".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?