Trump: Jail time for people who burn the American flag

[WHAMPOM]

The difference is this, Democrats can criticize their party officials' short comings, Republicans dare not. They are stuck in "can do or say no wrong" land.

 

[glenn1]

No it doesn't. I'll provide you with the bill of attainder link again along with the relevant quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_States



To be a bill of attainder this law has to:

1. Specify specific people to be punished. Nope, it specifies a general act.
2. Impose punishment. Yup.
3. Do so without a judicial trial. This imposes no punishment without trial.

It fails 2 of the 3 prongs of a bill of attainder test when it has to pass all three. Bill of attainder not found.

So again, there's no planet on which this is unconstitutional. Easy peasy.

So let's hope you're correct so that President Trump can start urging the passage of lots of new laws based on your principle. We're not criminalizing saying mean things about Trump, we're criminalizing "doing so to cause a riot." We're not criminalizing abortion, we're criminalizing "doing so to create a riot." Who cares if we arrest a bunch of folks since they'll be found innocent anyway, correct?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It was a 5-4 ruling in 1989 in Texas vs Johnson. It gave the right to burn the flag to a communist rioter who burned a stolen American flag. I've always been a bit unsure of the ruling since it gives a political physical action the coverage of just being speech, however it's still the law until and unless the Supreme Court revisits the issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

 

[glenn1]

It was a 5-4 ruling in 1989 in Texas vs Johnson. It gave the right to burn the flag to a communist rioter who burned a stolen American flag. I've always been a bit unsure of the ruling since it gives a political physical action the coverage of just being speech, however it's still the law until and unless the Supreme Court revisits the issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

Yeah but we can criminalize "engaging in breathing in order to incite a riot" and charge fskimospy with it. After all it's constitutional and he does breathe.

 

[Bubbleawsome]

So again, there's no planet on which this is unconstitutional. Easy peasy.

Except this one where we have the first amendment

 

[Commodus]

I'm going to reiterate what I stated earlier... Clinton's would-be law wasn't as egregious an offense as what Trump is proposing, but it's not something that I would support. And I suspect it would still face a constitutional challenge even if it did go through, since the very act of burning a flag doesn't incite violence -- it's what you're saying at the time that matters.

 

[fskimospy]

So let's hope you're correct so that President Trump can start urging the passage of lots of new laws based on your principle. We're not criminalizing saying mean things about Trump, we're criminalizing "doing so to cause a riot." We're not criminalizing abortion, we're criminalizing "doing so to create a riot." Who cares if we arrest a bunch of folks since they'll be found innocent anyway, correct?

Literally everything you mentioned is already illegal if you're inciting a riot by doing it and has been for a very, very long time.

 

[buckshot24]

I'm going to reiterate what I stated earlier... Clinton's would-be law wasn't as egregious an offense as what Trump is proposing, but it's not something that I would support. And I suspect it would still face a constitutional challenge even if it did go through, since the very act of burning a flag doesn't incite violence -- it's what you're saying at the time that matters.

He posted a tweet, just keep this in perspective.

 

[fskimospy]

Except this one where we have the first amendment

Nope, already covered in this thread. The law says it is illegal to burn a flag for the purpose of inciting violence, breach of the peace, etc. That is not protected speech as per Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

 

[glenn1]

I'm going to reiterate what I stated earlier... Clinton's would-be law wasn't as egregious an offense as what Trump is proposing, but it's not something that I would support. And I suspect it would still face a constitutional challenge even if it did go through, since the very act of burning a flag doesn't incite violence -- it's what you're saying at the time that matters.

That's a distinction that he's unable to see because of who authored the bill. Either that or he honestly believes it using the same (IMHO stupid) reasoning as hate crime laws. For someone who always claims "logic" as his basis for any position he holds a tremendously illogical support for this bill.

 

[fskimospy]

That's a distinction that he's unable to see because of who authored the bill. Either that or he honestly believes it using the same (IMHO stupid) reasoning as hate crime laws.

Yes, it's not that you've been wrong about what a bill of attainder is, relevant SCOTUS decisions on free speech, the contents of the law as proposed, etc, it's that my love of Clinton is making me tell you all those undeniable facts. 😉

 

[Exophase]

The most messed up part of this is the idea of revoking naturalized citizenship. As far as I can find that is completely unprecedented. I have to assume that, given his views on non-citizen occupation, he would also have these people banished from the country with no country of origin that can claim citizenship that will accept them. A practice that is completely incompatible with modern civilization. Although I'm sure that all sorts of reasonable countries would give accept such people as political refugees.

I disagree with people burning the flag, but living in a free country demands that I accept that they have the right to do it.

Of course, this is the usual Trump twitter bullshit / bravado. Let me know when there's actually a chance of a constitutional amendment passing that would allow for flag burning to become a criminal offense. No idea why he's wasting time on this stuff, there have to be 100 things ranked higher on his to-do list at this point.

It doesn't necessarily need a constitutional amendment if the supreme court rules that it doesn't constitute as mere speech but some sort of incitement to harm.

Is this the first time a mentally ill person has been elected to the office of President in the US ? He's consistently unhinged and incapable of recognizing his appalling behaviour, let alone controlling it. I think I've read that Reagan had dementia issues towards the end of his final term ? This must be the first instance of someone entering the office mentally ill from the outset.

Who knows for sure, but if there were presidents who held such deranged views in the past they were at least insulated by advisers who reviewed their public statements. Or at least they had far less ability to proclaim whatever random thoughts entered their head.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm going to reiterate what I stated earlier... Clinton's would-be law wasn't as egregious an offense as what Trump is proposing, but it's not something that I would support.

I agree! It wasn't even remotely as egregious an offense as threatening to jail and strip people of citizenship for burning the flag, but it's still not something I would support. One of those two things is incredibly unconstitutional and the other is not.

And I suspect it would still face a constitutional challenge even if it did go through, since the very act of burning a flag doesn't incite violence -- it's what you're saying at the time that matters.

I'm genuinely confused as to how it would face a constitutional challenge then. If what you're saying is the only thing that matters then no one would ever be prosecuted under this law, therefore no constitutional challenge could ever take place. More likely, courts would take into account the sum total of your actions while burning the flag, statements included, and make that determination. Considering the law closely mirror's SCOTUS's own words for what speech can be legally restricted it's hard to see how it would not pass constitutional muster.

This is a serious question, if you think it wouldn't survive a constitutional challenge what specific elements of the law do you think are unconstitutional and by what legal precedent are they unconstitutional?

 

[theeedude]

Don't feed the orange troll. Resist, obstruct, frustrate, yes. Feed, no.

 

[glenn1]

Nope, already covered in this thread. The law says it is illegal to burn a flag for the purpose of inciting violence, breach of the peace, etc. That is not protected speech as per Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire

You are deliberately leaving out a key test, Brandenburg requires expression "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and it is likely to incite such action." Flag burning is not likely to incite such action thus it's unconstitutional on 1A grounds.

 

[Commodus]

He posted a tweet, just keep this in perspective.

I definitely do. The odds of him translating this to a bill, let alone a law, is fairly slim. Not that it helps Trump's case much. It's a bad idea for any President-elect to spitball ideas on Twitter, especially when those ideas are grossly unconstitutional. At best, it's unnecessary; at worst, it betrays clueless and/or dangerous thinking. I'm getting this uneasy feeling that Trump really could trigger a diplomatic incident or formal investigation through one of his Twitter rants.

 

[fskimospy]

You are deliberately leaving out a key test, Brandenburg requires expression "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and it is likely to incite such action." Flag burning is not likely to incite such action thus it's unconstitutional on 1A grounds.

Absolute nonsense and it's totally clear you haven't even bothered to read the law in question.

Linked for you yet again in case you decide to change your mind about reading it. I have bolded the relevant section which explicitly addresses Brandenburg.

EDIT: Sorry, I linked the US code on inciting a riot instead of the bill. Fixed.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/1911/text

(b) Actions Promoting Violence.—Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and under circumstances in which the person knows that it is reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

Presumably now you will accept that you were wrong about this. Am I right?

 

[glenn1]

Absolute nonsense and it's totally clear you haven't even bothered to read the law in question.

Linked for you yet again in case you decide to change your mind about reading it. I have bolded the relevant section which explicitly addresses Brandenburg.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2102

Presumably now you will accept that you were wrong about this. Am I right?

I'd rather be morally right than correct if your interpretation is true. And I would leave the country if it were upheld by the SCOTUS since that decision would be far worse than burning the flag or a riot that followed doing so.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd rather be morally right than correct if your interpretation is true. And I would leave the country if it were upheld by the SCOTUS since that decision would be far worse than burning the flag or a riot that followed doing so.

Then you should leave the country now because if you incited a riot for any reason (burning the flag included) you could be prosecuted for it. The only difference between this law and the ones currently on the books is a different penalty as far as I can tell.

 

[glenn1]

Then you should leave the country now because if you incited a riot for any reason (burning the flag included) you could be prosecuted for it. The only difference between this law and the ones currently on the books is a different penalty as far as I can tell.

Burning the flag is not inciting a riot. You are supporting the prosecution of free speech.

Let me try this with an example you might understand. Would it be constitutional if Congress passed a law saying "if you incited a riot by the act of being gay" that you could be prosecuted? Is there literally no distinction in your mind between an action and an incitement to violence and literally any possible act (or lack of action) equally constitutional to pass an "incite a riot" law based upon?

 

[fskimospy]

Burning the flag is not inciting a riot. You are supporting the prosecution of free speech.

Of course I'm not supporting the prosecution of free speech. You seem to have mixed up the difference between 'burning a flag' and 'inciting a riot by burning a flag'. The first one is protected speech, the second is not. This bill only deals with the second.

As I said already, you should pack your bags as what you could be prosecuted today for what you complained about.

 

[sportage]

You know what this would instigate.
Masses of public flag burnings to protest this law, if it did indeed become law, with no arrests because the US constitution already protects flag burning as a right.
They would need an constitutional amendment to illegal-ize flag burning.
In the mean time, all this would boil down to are more pretest and more violence in the streets pitting one American against another.
Welcome to YOUR world of President Donald Trump, you idiot Trump supporters.
Pitting American against American.
Our little own Islamic-like government right here at home.

Or...
Maybe Donald meant "i love you" burning?
Well even if he meant flag burning, eventually Trump will get around to supporting i love you burning. Considering the type of administration he has been busy putting together.

 

[glenn1]

Of course I'm not supporting the prosecution of free speech. You seem to have mixed up the difference between 'burning a flag' and 'inciting a riot by burning a flag'. The first one is protected speech, the second is not. This bill only deals with the second.

As I said already, you should pack your bags as what you could be prosecuted today for what you complained about.

No wonder you support gun control laws, you must be one terrified little coward if you think that burning flags will result in riots. Better pass some more "constitutional" laws like if wearing a baseball cap to incite a riot is a crime. Or being a woman to incite a riot. Or more likely, 'voting against Trump to incite a riot."

 

[Commodus]

You know what this would instigate.
Masses of public flag burnings to protest this law, if it did indeed become law, with no arrests because the US constitution already protects flag burning as a right.

That's true of some of the policies Trump has formally proposed, too. I think he genuinely doesn't understand that some of these measures would lead to stand-your-ground resistance. If he somehow got libel laws expanded, for example, you could be sure that attacks against Trump in the press would only intensify.

 

[dank69]

Burning the flag is not inciting a riot. You are supporting the prosecution of free speech.

Let me try this with an example you might understand. Would it be constitutional if Congress passed a law saying "if you incited a riot by the act of being gay" that you could be prosecuted? Is there literally no distinction in your mind between an action and an incitement to violence and literally any possible act (or lack of action) equally constitutional to pass an "incite a riot" law based upon?

Glenn, we all get it. Since you think that it is impossible to incite a riot by burning a flag it means that the government will just start prosecuting and convicting everyone that burns a flag. In reality, that isn't how the law works. Even if someone were prosecuted, it would be impossible to prove they incited a riot by burning the flag according to you so they would have to be acquitted.