In my opinion, DABANSHEE, the issue usually comes up when Republicans, whose core concerns are with their funders, the well off, look for issues of passion to paste over what would otherwise be glaringly obvious and garner very few votes. Similar with family values, guns, moral rectitude, and Christian fundamentalism.
Red: Although it isn't central to this discussion, 58,178 American men and women died in the War in Vietnam, not 35,000.
http://thewall-usa.com/stats/index.html
http://thewall-usa.com/stats/index.html
Moonbeam: I suppose the issue related to what I wrote comes down to where does the distinction between protest and treason fall, and if we have the right, as you say, to alter or abolish our government, how is that protected under the very article of government that allegedly authorizes it? In short, if you are seeking the destruction of the Constitution, how can you claim protection under it? It's an interesting conundrum.
Red Dawn: Don't expand an argument to a logical absurdity since that defeats the purpose of intelligent discussion. My observation of Hanoi Jane's actions were in the context of an example of war protest that could be considered treason, which implicates the free speech discussion of flag burning. Flying off the handle to discuss the Vietnam war on a larger scale is pointless in this topic, regardless of the merit of your assertions, on which I make no judgment so as to not perpetuate that tangent. Plus, I was making an argument looking for refutation of it, which you did not make.
Does anyone like me dislike the lack of a full thread posting when replying now? I can never see what I was responding to anymore. :|
Red Dawn: Don't expand an argument to a logical absurdity since that defeats the purpose of intelligent discussion. My observation of Hanoi Jane's actions were in the context of an example of war protest that could be considered treason, which implicates the free speech discussion of flag burning. Flying off the handle to discuss the Vietnam war on a larger scale is pointless in this topic, regardless of the merit of your assertions, on which I make no judgment so as to not perpetuate that tangent. Plus, I was making an argument looking for refutation of it, which you did not make.
Does anyone like me dislike the lack of a full thread posting when replying now? I can never see what I was responding to anymore. :|
Andrew:
No conundrum exists. Protestors are protected by the Constitution until it is replaced, which won't be any time soon.
Free speech has always been difficult for authoritarian right wingers to handle, hasn't it?
No conundrum exists. Protestors are protected by the Constitution until it is replaced, which won't be any time soon.
Free speech has always been difficult for authoritarian right wingers to handle, hasn't it?
Ah, I see it now...
Red Dawn: You so blithely speak for the fallen -- have you in fact discussed this issue with the dead? Yes, they died for the cause of freedom (or for their buddies, or because they were forced to -- many reasons actually and few probably contemplated the cause of freedom), but that does not mean that they necessarily come out one way or the other on the topic. Perhaps a significant portion of dead soldiers would say that they despise flag burning and would support the banning of it, especially since they died for it. Conversely, they might say that because they died for it, their memory is best served by allowing the protest. We can never say for sure so we should not.
rahvin: "Where do you stop after that, how about an amendment repealing the first 5 amendments?"
Oh, stop with the hyperbole. An amendment banning flag burning is hardly the first step to the eventual repeal of the 1st Amendment right to free speech, let alone half of the Bill of Rights. To my knowledge, there is no other symbol or form of expression which is so hotly contested and none that could be.
The amendment process is in place to ensure that we can modify the Constitution to allow for those things which are currently questionable or forbidden under the extant terms but which a 2/3 majority of the population would like to see enabled. To me, an amendment on the income tax seems silly when placed next to the Bill of Rights, but if it is technically forbidden by the language of the Constitution as determined by the Supreme Court, then an amendment must be passed for such a law.
Red Dawn: You so blithely speak for the fallen -- have you in fact discussed this issue with the dead? Yes, they died for the cause of freedom (or for their buddies, or because they were forced to -- many reasons actually and few probably contemplated the cause of freedom), but that does not mean that they necessarily come out one way or the other on the topic. Perhaps a significant portion of dead soldiers would say that they despise flag burning and would support the banning of it, especially since they died for it. Conversely, they might say that because they died for it, their memory is best served by allowing the protest. We can never say for sure so we should not.
rahvin: "Where do you stop after that, how about an amendment repealing the first 5 amendments?"
Oh, stop with the hyperbole. An amendment banning flag burning is hardly the first step to the eventual repeal of the 1st Amendment right to free speech, let alone half of the Bill of Rights. To my knowledge, there is no other symbol or form of expression which is so hotly contested and none that could be.
The amendment process is in place to ensure that we can modify the Constitution to allow for those things which are currently questionable or forbidden under the extant terms but which a 2/3 majority of the population would like to see enabled. To me, an amendment on the income tax seems silly when placed next to the Bill of Rights, but if it is technically forbidden by the language of the Constitution as determined by the Supreme Court, then an amendment must be passed for such a law.
chess9: How trite of you. A simple statement disavowing the presence of a paradox does not make it disappear. If someone is seeking the replacement of the Constitution, that certainly steps beyond the bounds of "protest".
Instead of passing a law to ban flag burning, how about we repeal some laws that cause people to want to burn flags?
Andrew:
I thought you said it was a conundrum? Now you say it's a paradox. All these big words are too hard for someone with my slight familiarity with the English language to comprehend.
I don't understand how freedom of speech poses either a conundrum or a paradox. You either have rights or you don't.
I thought you said it was a conundrum? Now you say it's a paradox. All these big words are too hard for someone with my slight familiarity with the English language to comprehend.
I don't understand how freedom of speech poses either a conundrum or a paradox. You either have rights or you don't.
"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I can't recall from who.
bart
I can't recall from who.
bart
Actually from my observation, it seems more rationial that American soldiers died to protect your right to burn your own flag (your freedom), than the idea that they died to protect the flag itself.
Afterall, what is the flag, other than a symbol of America's fredom. Consequently the flag is worth nothing if you don't have the right to 'burn it'.
Also it seems, one of the reasons that these freedoms are held dear, is because that was the stimula for America's creation - a reaction to the sedition laws of the UK.
Therefore, if one was to re-introduce such laws again, it would nullify the whole purpose of what the US is about.
Well that's my observation as a foreigner.
What I find strange is all these rules 'n regulations that Americans have concerning the flag, in regards to how its folded, presented, hung, disposed of, raised, etc. Even the British, themselves have very few such rules 'n regulations compared to the US - relative speaking, the Brits only have few rules, which is basically to make sure some junior beaurocrat or sub-leftenant doesn't raise it upside down (which isnt that hard with the Union Jack to do by mistake).
Afterall, what is the flag, other than a symbol of America's fredom. Consequently the flag is worth nothing if you don't have the right to 'burn it'.
Also it seems, one of the reasons that these freedoms are held dear, is because that was the stimula for America's creation - a reaction to the sedition laws of the UK.
Therefore, if one was to re-introduce such laws again, it would nullify the whole purpose of what the US is about.
Well that's my observation as a foreigner.
What I find strange is all these rules 'n regulations that Americans have concerning the flag, in regards to how its folded, presented, hung, disposed of, raised, etc. Even the British, themselves have very few such rules 'n regulations compared to the US - relative speaking, the Brits only have few rules, which is basically to make sure some junior beaurocrat or sub-leftenant doesn't raise it upside down (which isnt that hard with the Union Jack to do by mistake).
"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Voltaire said it first. Think he was a French writer....or a greek philospher...I forget which.
Voltaire said it first. Think he was a French writer....or a greek philospher...I forget which.
: How trite of you. A simple statement disavowing the presence of a paradox does not make it disappear. If someone is seeking the replacement of the Constitution, that certainly steps beyond the bounds of "protest".
As you said it only takes 2/3 of the senate or house or somebody else forgot who to change the constitution. It could in theory be possible to throw out the constitution throw peaceful protest.
We should be free to burn the flag (It would be put to better use a clothing for the poor and starving in other countries but that isn't the point). If the flag is a symbol of great importance to our military and goverment then what better way to disrespect the goverment? People died in the war over what the flag repersents our freedom
As you said it only takes 2/3 of the senate or house or somebody else forgot who to change the constitution. It could in theory be possible to throw out the constitution throw peaceful protest.
We should be free to burn the flag (It would be put to better use a clothing for the poor and starving in other countries but that isn't the point). If the flag is a symbol of great importance to our military and goverment then what better way to disrespect the goverment? People died in the war over what the flag repersents our freedom
Just for a bit of a history lesson, it takes 2/3 of house and 3/4 of senate (might have that backwards) to amend the Constitution. However, the United States original Constitituion (The Articles of Confederation) were simply thrown out after people began to protest and the states realized we needed a different form of government. The government had no "legal" authority to do so, however there is also nothing in place to stop them from doing it again. So basicly at any time our country could throw out the entire Constitution and start a new one if they felt the need.
AndrewR -- <<An amendment banning flag burning is hardly the first step to the eventual repeal of the 1st Amendment right to free speech...>>
You're right that it isn't the first step toward repealing the freedom speeech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Doing so would specifically require its repeal. You can't have it both ways. Either we are free to speak, or we are not.
Right now, the only bars to free speech are against speech that damages others, for example, libel or slander, and speech where the forseeable consequenses of our speech, which is why there are restrictions on speech which incites unlawful or dangerous actions. That is why you can't yell "Fire!" in a theater or incite a crowd to go out and kill anyone.
What are you afraid of? That someone who burns a flag might actually influence someone to question the actions of the Federal government? What speech or other Constitutionally guaranteed freedom will you limit, next?
The Constitution does not guarantee the you will like, agree with, or even be the least bit comfortable with any specific speech. Many of the greatest thoughts of human beings have that effect. In 1632, the Catholic church exiled Galileo for publishing that the Earth and other planets circled the Sun because it was contrary to the doctrine of the Church. Who was right? (Three guesses).
Grow up, and get over it.
You're right that it isn't the first step toward repealing the freedom speeech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Doing so would specifically require its repeal. You can't have it both ways. Either we are free to speak, or we are not.
Right now, the only bars to free speech are against speech that damages others, for example, libel or slander, and speech where the forseeable consequenses of our speech, which is why there are restrictions on speech which incites unlawful or dangerous actions. That is why you can't yell "Fire!" in a theater or incite a crowd to go out and kill anyone.
What are you afraid of? That someone who burns a flag might actually influence someone to question the actions of the Federal government? What speech or other Constitutionally guaranteed freedom will you limit, next?
The Constitution does not guarantee the you will like, agree with, or even be the least bit comfortable with any specific speech. Many of the greatest thoughts of human beings have that effect. In 1632, the Catholic church exiled Galileo for publishing that the Earth and other planets circled the Sun because it was contrary to the doctrine of the Church. Who was right? (Three guesses).
Grow up, and get over it.
I think people shouldn't burn the flag, but I don't think flag burning should be illegal... If they make that illegal, well, that'll just open up the jack-in-the-box..and they'll want to make a whole bunch of stuff illegal, and then we won't really be free..
It's hard to "throw out" the Constitution after it has been around for so long.
The reason the Articles of Confederation was easily defeated was because no one really payed full attention to them in the first place. It never had the time to "settle-in" like the US Constitution has.
The reason the Articles of Confederation was easily defeated was because no one really payed full attention to them in the first place. It never had the time to "settle-in" like the US Constitution has.
Red Dawn: Whoa there, Nellie. I'd rather not discuss the Vietnam War in broad terms in this thread simply because then you start having twenty different topics going without any coherence. Obviously, it's not AndrewTech (if it were, I wouldn't be driving the POS 1989 car that I have!), but it's better, in my experience, to keep topics discrete to avoid unwieldy threads -- this one is heading there without the need to throw Vietnam in there. I'll start another thread because that war is of interest to me.
BTW,those I know personally who served over in Vietnam didn't do so as much out of Patriotism and Duty to ones country as much as ...Precisely my point, actually. If we say they died for our right to free speech, that's not entirely accurate, at least from their perspective. I'm sure that some did, but in that war in particular, patriotism was not the overriding motivator. That's not to say that their sacrifice is not appreciated, nor that they lacked patriotism, nor further that they somehow had diminished valor -- only that it was a very different war. I think that U.S. soldiers in WWII were much more motivated by patriotism as a whole since the goals of that war were to counteract forces acting directly against democracy and freedom.
chess9: What language is native for you? Perhaps I can translate (I'm serious, I have many dictionaries). In any event, it is a paradox (contradiction) since I do not see how one can claim protection under a document that one wishes to destroy. If you do not agree to it, how can you then turn around and claim its validity to protect your actions? That seems like asking for both sides of the coin. If you are talking about the presence of the inherent rights of mankind (inalienable right to freedom), that would seem to be an entirely different discussion. There's an interesting wrinkle.
Comp10: 403 beat me to it. The Articles were only in place for a few years and never established the type of history that the Constitution now enjoys in the U.S. (ok, do I put two periods at the end of that sentence???)
Harvey:You're right that it isn't the first step toward repealing the freedom speeech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Doing so would specifically require its repeal. You can't have it both ways. Either we are free to speak, or we are not.
Oh, please. There are exceptions for every rule, and you cite two in the very statement you make describing free speech. If free speech is so absolute as you declare, then even inciteful or dangerous speech would be allowed. However, if you are saying that speech that gives rise to tort liability is forbidden, then why is speech that gives rise to treason also not forbidden (obviously, I'm speaking of treasonous speech, not all of it)?
The Constitution does not guarantee the you will like, agree with, or even be the least bit comfortable with any specific speech...Grow up, and get over it.
I don't see argument as evidentiary of a lack of maturity or age, do you? Or, does this make you uncomfortable, and you are trying to censor me? Damn it, I'm going to burn a flag in protest.
BTW,those I know personally who served over in Vietnam didn't do so as much out of Patriotism and Duty to ones country as much as ...Precisely my point, actually. If we say they died for our right to free speech, that's not entirely accurate, at least from their perspective. I'm sure that some did, but in that war in particular, patriotism was not the overriding motivator. That's not to say that their sacrifice is not appreciated, nor that they lacked patriotism, nor further that they somehow had diminished valor -- only that it was a very different war. I think that U.S. soldiers in WWII were much more motivated by patriotism as a whole since the goals of that war were to counteract forces acting directly against democracy and freedom.
chess9: What language is native for you? Perhaps I can translate (I'm serious, I have many dictionaries). In any event, it is a paradox (contradiction) since I do not see how one can claim protection under a document that one wishes to destroy. If you do not agree to it, how can you then turn around and claim its validity to protect your actions? That seems like asking for both sides of the coin. If you are talking about the presence of the inherent rights of mankind (inalienable right to freedom), that would seem to be an entirely different discussion. There's an interesting wrinkle.
Comp10: 403 beat me to it. The Articles were only in place for a few years and never established the type of history that the Constitution now enjoys in the U.S. (ok, do I put two periods at the end of that sentence???)
Harvey:You're right that it isn't the first step toward repealing the freedom speeech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Doing so would specifically require its repeal. You can't have it both ways. Either we are free to speak, or we are not.
Oh, please. There are exceptions for every rule, and you cite two in the very statement you make describing free speech. If free speech is so absolute as you declare, then even inciteful or dangerous speech would be allowed. However, if you are saying that speech that gives rise to tort liability is forbidden, then why is speech that gives rise to treason also not forbidden (obviously, I'm speaking of treasonous speech, not all of it)?
The Constitution does not guarantee the you will like, agree with, or even be the least bit comfortable with any specific speech...Grow up, and get over it.
I don't see argument as evidentiary of a lack of maturity or age, do you? Or, does this make you uncomfortable, and you are trying to censor me? Damn it, I'm going to burn a flag in protest.
403Forbidden, AndrewR:I wasnt attempting to suggest that it was going to happen again , I was simply making the point that the Constitution isnt written in stone and that if we arnt carefull to protect it, it could be undermined.
, I was simply making the point that the Constitution isnt written in stone and that if we arnt carefull to protect it, it could be undermined.I understand, but we both wanted to point out (if I may speak for 403 on this minor point) that the comparison with the Articles is not really valid. Overturning the Constitution at this point would be a matter of civil war.
Speaking of which, I just started a new thread on a constitutional question.
Hey, this is my first 100+ thread!
Speaking of which, I just started a new thread on a constitutional question.
Hey, this is my first 100+ thread!
Hmmm.....
Red- You've got me interested in 'Nam now. I'm going to have to add it to my list of anti-government research.
Red- You've got me interested in 'Nam now. I'm going to have to add it to my list of anti-government research.
<< So basicly your saying that if a citizen does not believe our government is doing a good job, they should lose the right to change it (vote)? >>
No... that's not what I'm saying. The flag represents our NATION and its PEOPLE. Remember, in our way of life, the Government is simply an extension of the people. If the Government is a by/for/of the people, then rebellion against it is rebellion against the other citizens of the nation. I'm very much for the old saying "America, love it or leave it" with one modification... "America, love it, leave it or vote for change". We already have avenues to accomplish change. If we, however, decide to practice things which border on the beginnings of anarchy, then the whole structure is more at risk.
What do you people think citizens in the 1780's would have done had they seen someone burning the flag of the nation which they had fought and so hard for?
Joe
AndrewR -- << However, if you are saying that speech that gives rise to tort liability is forbidden, then why is speech that gives rise to treason also not forbidden (obviously, I'm speaking of treasonous speech, not all of it)?>>
Sorry, but the act of burning a piece of cloth, even a red, white and blue cloth with stars on it, in and of itself, is not inciting treason. Because of the symolism behind the flag, it is an act intended to incite a strong reaction, but it is still merely defacing a symbol, and nothing more. You're statement is meaningless.
<< Damn it, I'm going to burn a flag in protest. >>
Need a match? I have plenty.
Sorry, but the act of burning a piece of cloth, even a red, white and blue cloth with stars on it, in and of itself, is not inciting treason. Because of the symolism behind the flag, it is an act intended to incite a strong reaction, but it is still merely defacing a symbol, and nothing more. You're statement is meaningless.
<< Damn it, I'm going to burn a flag in protest. >>
Need a match? I have plenty.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter