aquapub
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 7,317
- Reaction score
- 344
- Location
- America (A.K.A., a red state)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Should flag burning be protected as a form of free speech?
Under our current hallucinatory liberal interpretation, the founding fathers supposedly meant the 1st Amendment to protect Howard Stern from having to use private airwaves to discuss rim jobs; it was apparently also meant to protect Larry Flynt from decency laws.
Surely if THESE things are protected by it, then flag burning would be.
But only in the delusional world of a liberal's mind does it make sense to think that all our deeply religious Judeo-Christian founders meant this. They came from a background of religious and political persecution, and, as their writings UNMISTAKABLY clarify, the 1st Amendment was meant to protect RELIGIOUS and POLITICAL speech, not pornography and vulgarity.
But IS flag burning POLITICAL speech? I don't think it qualifies. It is mindlessly setting a symbol on fire. If that is speech, then picking your nose is also a form of Constitutionally protected speech. It is just a symbol. I don't think burning flags should be illegal, but I sure as hell don't think it is CONSTITUTIONALLY protected. Who is hurt by flag burning? No one. People may choose to be offended and go nuts over it, but being offended is something free societies of people (not to mention adults in general) have to get over.
On that same token though, I don't think cross burning should be illegal. Professional black victims can drudge up the same lame excuses for their lack of self-control as veterans who are offended by flag burning, but that doesn't give them the right to force some degenerate who is too stupid to form verbal arguments to stop burning symbols to compensate for not having an intelect.
Burning things doesn't communicate anything decipherable. It is just something angry retards do when they are upset. Punching a wall is not POLITICAL speech. None of this stuff is an example of POLITICAL speech. Speaking, writing, protesting, etc. are examples of POLITICAL speech.
When a Hollywood jackass starts trashing the consumer society that made him/her rich, that is barely political speech, so habitual liar-half-wits like Michael Moore SHOULD be protected. (but not from consumer boycotts. )
The biggest stretch of POLITICAL speech I can accept as valid is contributing money to causes and candidates you support. It is important that people be able to express their opinions in this manner. But even that is somewhat pushing it.
But even things that ARE political speech are still not protected by the Constitution the way people think they are.
Virginia and New York originally refused to sign the Constitution. The Bill of Rights (including the 1st Amendment) was added to assure them that the federal government would not trample the rights of the states.
So when a federal judge tells a local shool district that they are violating a child's 1st Amendment rights in some way and orders them to change, he/she is usurping his/her authority and doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what was intended. Judges AREN'T supposed to have this kind of authority over state and local matters.
The states were supposed to be largely free of federal interference. But the document that was drafted to ensure that-the Constitution-has been used to justify micro-managing every area of our lives and to legislate from the bench.
Under our current hallucinatory liberal interpretation, the founding fathers supposedly meant the 1st Amendment to protect Howard Stern from having to use private airwaves to discuss rim jobs; it was apparently also meant to protect Larry Flynt from decency laws.
Surely if THESE things are protected by it, then flag burning would be.
But only in the delusional world of a liberal's mind does it make sense to think that all our deeply religious Judeo-Christian founders meant this. They came from a background of religious and political persecution, and, as their writings UNMISTAKABLY clarify, the 1st Amendment was meant to protect RELIGIOUS and POLITICAL speech, not pornography and vulgarity.
But IS flag burning POLITICAL speech? I don't think it qualifies. It is mindlessly setting a symbol on fire. If that is speech, then picking your nose is also a form of Constitutionally protected speech. It is just a symbol. I don't think burning flags should be illegal, but I sure as hell don't think it is CONSTITUTIONALLY protected. Who is hurt by flag burning? No one. People may choose to be offended and go nuts over it, but being offended is something free societies of people (not to mention adults in general) have to get over.
On that same token though, I don't think cross burning should be illegal. Professional black victims can drudge up the same lame excuses for their lack of self-control as veterans who are offended by flag burning, but that doesn't give them the right to force some degenerate who is too stupid to form verbal arguments to stop burning symbols to compensate for not having an intelect.
Burning things doesn't communicate anything decipherable. It is just something angry retards do when they are upset. Punching a wall is not POLITICAL speech. None of this stuff is an example of POLITICAL speech. Speaking, writing, protesting, etc. are examples of POLITICAL speech.
When a Hollywood jackass starts trashing the consumer society that made him/her rich, that is barely political speech, so habitual liar-half-wits like Michael Moore SHOULD be protected. (but not from consumer boycotts. )
The biggest stretch of POLITICAL speech I can accept as valid is contributing money to causes and candidates you support. It is important that people be able to express their opinions in this manner. But even that is somewhat pushing it.
But even things that ARE political speech are still not protected by the Constitution the way people think they are.
Virginia and New York originally refused to sign the Constitution. The Bill of Rights (including the 1st Amendment) was added to assure them that the federal government would not trample the rights of the states.
So when a federal judge tells a local shool district that they are violating a child's 1st Amendment rights in some way and orders them to change, he/she is usurping his/her authority and doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what was intended. Judges AREN'T supposed to have this kind of authority over state and local matters.
The states were supposed to be largely free of federal interference. But the document that was drafted to ensure that-the Constitution-has been used to justify micro-managing every area of our lives and to legislate from the bench.
Last edited: