This is one of the most meaningless posts I've ever encountered.
Yes because you are so hard core? Right.
[emphasis added by bubba]
this belief in freedom and liberty you are willing to fight for
why did the peaceful protesters not deserve it too?
I don't know. He made an excellent point in the end.
The 1stA is in place to protect offensive speech. You have the absolute right to say whatever you wish, but with rights comes responsibility and and, at times, consequences. You have the absolute right to tell your boss to f/o...he would then likely tell you you're fired. Cause and effect. It's the natural order of things.
Just remember, those of you citing the first amendment decision of the SC, that this is the same SC that gave the EPA the potential authority to regulate your exhalations. So if the EPA decides that you yourself should no longer exhale, by all means don't break the law. Somehow the idea that the ever changing legal proscriptions of the SC should also constitute a moral compass is getting lost in the weeds here. The flag is indeed just a symbol - the very same symbol the British tried mightily to shoot off the top of Ft. McHenry. I wonder why they even bothered with such an empty symbol.
The 1stA is in place to protect offensive speech. You have the absolute right to say whatever you wish, but with rights comes responsibility and and, at times, consequences. You have the absolute right to tell your boss to f/o...he would then likely tell you you're fired. Cause and effect. It's the natural order of things.
Waxing poetic about the Revolutionary War may pluck the ol' heartstrings, but it has absolutely dick-all to do with the actual subject at hand.
Moderator's Warning: |
You can tell your boss to f/o, he can fire you. But he cannot assault you. There's a line to how far the "consequences" can go. Assault against those merely exercising rights is generally preached mostly by the intellectually inferior, insecure entitlement folk.
Funny. Nobody has the "right" to assault someone that offends them with speech. Not sure why that simple idea needs repeating so often.
See, your type is part of the problem. Using the US flag and the Quran in the same context. I pity you.
...I know exactly why you are so determined to defend these America-hating rats--and it has nothing to do with the freedom of speech.
See, your type is part of the problem. Using the US flag and the Quran in the same context. I pity you.
Its not a right to deliberately attempt to enrage someone.
While we are thinking about things. The the occupy group/disarm nypd admitted that they use the flag burning tactic to gain attention. They wanted people to get upset so that this story would make its rounds. They wanted their message to be spread around. They knew that they were pissing people off. And in typical fashion for a far left extremist group manipulate human emotion to get more air play. They are happy; the only people upset are people like you that dont understand their tactics.
Symbolic acts can only affect you to the extent you allow them to.
Uh huh. Are you done with your holier than thou diatribe yet?
As soon as you get done with yours.
TIt amazes me that conservatives are willing to throw out all sorts of slippery slope arguments against that which they do not support, but heaven forbid they should realize the slippery slopes for what they want. If this act of free speech is disallowed, then what next under the guise of "patriotism"?
The true lover of liberty defends that which offends him in the legal arena even as he condemns it socially. This is why we defend the right of a person to burn a flag even while calling such a person abhorrent.
Your remark about conservatives and slippery slopes is incoherent pap. I have not seen anyone but you talk about infringing anyone's freedom of speech. It is basic civics that the freedom of speech is a limitation on government, and not on private persons. No private individual would be violating a flag-burner's First Amendment freedom of speech by knocking his G--damned front teeth out, or using any other kind of force to prevent him from burning the flag. Nothing but ordinary state criminal laws against battery, etc. would apply.
How very stirring. Unlike you and your fellow more evolved beings, most of us conservative lawyers are, of course, benighted troglodytes who HATE the freedom of speech.
And I agree with Justice Scalia's opinion for the majority in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul. In that case, the Court held unconstitutional, on free speech grounds, a city "hate speech" ordinance that would have punished a teenager for burning a cross in a black family's yard.
Actually the right of free speech also means that you cannot silence me either. You can try to drown me out via your own right, and you can invoke, via other rights, consequences that do not violate any of my other rights should I use my free speech right in a manner you dislike on property you own or otherwise control.
But in a public area, save for the drowning out option you can do nothing to stop my speech. Well you can but you would then violate other rights of mine, much like the bikers violated the protesters' rights in assaulting them.
Now a proper counter protest to the flag burning would be to have an extinguisher at hand and douse the fire each time it is lit. No rights are violated and since the burner is on public property, as is the counter protester, both would be excising free speech rights.
Actually I find that the liberals are quite hateful of free speech as well when it comes to their little idiosyncrasies. They like to call it "hate speech". Sorry to disappoint you, but you con's haven't managed to corner the market on attempts to limit free speech.
The teenager should very well have been punished, but not on "hate speech" grounds. He put that cross on someone else's lawn without permission and the set it on fire. Trespassing, destruction of property (not the cross itself since that was his), arson (albeit indirectly), and many other property rights violations. Now had he decided to burn a cross in his own lawn as a protest, he would be fully within his rights to do so.
If it is a sensitive subject, yes. That seems sensible enough.So whatever we do that is LEGAL BTW, we should be prepared to face attack and ILLEGAL actions?
Some of us are not so civilized. There are some problems physical force solves very well, and a person's constitutional freedom of speech won't stop me if he insults my girlfriend.
I don't know what a "con" is, but I can not state any more clearly than I have that I support the freedom of speech very strongly. So do other true, classic liberals. "Hate speech" codes are hostile to the freedom of speech, and the Court sent a clear signal in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul that it took a dim view of them.
I find it ridiculous how people get so emotional about someone burning their own property because of the way it looks. It's all role playing.
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?