Should flag burners lose citizenship?

[expos4ever]

I think it is exceedingly inappropriate to burn a flag, and I do not see how it would be considered "free speech". In this respect, I believe that certain other statements (such as "kill all the <insert any skin colour you wish>s") are not protected by the constitution. Correct me if I am wrong - I am not an American.

Do you not see how flag-burning can be easily seen as symbolic means to call for the destruction of an entire people. To me, it is essentially the same things as saying "All Americans should die". And, as such, I think it probably should be illegal. The flag stands for the people, not the government. And there is nothing more violent than fire. I just don't see how flag-burning is not a form of dangerous "hate-speech". If you are going to make "Kill all the <insert any skin colour you wish>s" illegal, then flag-burning should be illegal as well.

Contrast flag-burning with the situation where those football players do not stand during the anthem. I think the situations are very different. Like the flag, the anthem does indeed represent the people not the government. But to kneel when the anthem is playing is effectively to say "I do not respect the values that I see reflected in the American people". Expressing disrespect is very different from expressing the wish to destroy (which is what I think flag-burning cashes out to).

 

[morningstar2651]

That's not what this is about.

What is this about then? Should speech you disagree with be illegal? Should people who say something offensive lose the right to vote?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

If you're going to take it literally, I'm going to take it literally. The Constitution gives the government the ability to mint. Minting has to do with coins and is not related to paper money which is printed. Since it doesn't mention printing paper money, we have to assume by your own standard that paper money is unconstitutional.

Lack of mention does not mean prohibition. In this example, printing of paper money can certainly be enacted by federal law, the Constitution does not exhaustively list out each thing you can or cannot do, but provides fundamental limits on government. The point made was that freedom of expression is not one of these fundamental limits, even though I disagree and believe it is.

 

[Chesterton]

If you're going to take it literally, I'm going to take it literally. The Constitution gives the government the ability to mint. Minting has to do with coins and is not related to paper money which is printed. Since it doesn't mention printing paper money, we have to assume by your own standard that paper money is unconstitutional.

No we don't.

Even originalists (like Scalia) look at both the Constitution and its historical context, the intent of the framers, commentators and the legislative history. Originalism does not mean ripping the Constitution out of its surroundings and the thoughts of the framers.

 

[LoAmmi]

Lack of mention does not mean prohibition. In this example, printing of paper money can certainly be enacted by federal law, the Constitution does not exhaustively list out each thing you can or cannot do, but provides fundamental limits on government. The point made was that freedom of expression is not one of these fundamental limits, even though I disagree and believe it is.

Sure, but my point is that if we're going to act like it does, then I'm going to act like it does with everything else.

The second amendment becomes weird if we take it 100% literal.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Do you not see how flag-burning can be easily seen as symbolic means to call for the destruction of an entire people.

Yeah and calling for less illegal immigration can be seen by some special snowflakes as a call of hatred against all Mexicans. I'm not buying this. It doesn't matter if you personally see burning a flag as a call to destruction, this cannot be proved in a court of law.

 

[LoAmmi]

I think it is exceedingly inappropriate to burn a flag, and I do not see how it would be considered "free speech". In this respect, I believe that certain other statements (such as "kill all the <insert any skin colour you wish>) are not protected by the constitution. Correct me if I am wrong - I am not an American.

Do you not see how flag-burning can be easily seen as symbolic means to call for the destruction of an entire people.

It is better to err on the side of freedom when nobody is harmed than restrict freedom because something is distasteful.

 

[morningstar2651]

Yes because burning the nation's flag to me is tantamount to renouncing citizenship anyway, or worse, declaring yourself an enemy of the nation.

You should vote in the poll. We're currently at 0% agreeing with the president-elect.

 

[LinguaIgnota]

You're free to do whatever you want to your own property as long as it doesn't endanger anyone else's life, health or property. If you want to pay for a piece of cloth only to set it on fire then have at it. Go nuts. Buy two.

Fragile little snowflakes shouldn't get to determine what you're allowed to express, and how you express it. They can very well stay within the confines of their safe spaces if your thoughts offend them. Granted, it seems rather infantile to burn a flag when your point could be stated much more succinctly verbally; but that's really none of my business. Grown ups should be able to just shake their heads and move on with their lives.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Sure, but my point is that if we're going to act like it does, then I'm going to act like it does with everything else.

The second amendment becomes weird if we take it 100% literal.

He wasn't acting like it was, but whether freedom of expression was a fundamental limit protected in the Constitution. You're attacking a strawman by then making a parallel about paper money, which is no fundamental limit.

I don't personally see how the second amendment becomes weird when you take it literally, and as the framers intended.

 

[Tallguy88]

Really? What law would that be?

US Flag Code

 

[LoAmmi]

US Flag Code

That isn't a law. Those are guidelines for handling the flag that do not carry the force of law.

 

[morningstar2651]

US Flag Code

"When a flag is so tattered that it no longer fits to serve as a symbol of the United States, it should be destroyed in a dignified manner, preferably by burning" - US Flag Code

 

[Chesterton]

You should vote in the poll. We're currently at 0% agreeing with the president-elect.

Sorry, overlooked it.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

In which case, Scalia agreed with the Supreme Court decision to uphold the right of citizens to burn the American flag.

 

[Tallguy88]

What is this about then? Should speech you disagree with be illegal? Should people who say something offensive lose the right to vote?

That's not what you said. You referred to honorable disposal of the US flag by burning it. Flag protection laws have never outlawed such practices. It's flag desecration that is the topic.

 

[Chesterton]

In which case, Scalia agreed with the Supreme Court decision to uphold the right of citizens to burn the American flag.

And...?

 

[LoAmmi]

He wasn't acting like it was, but whether freedom of expression was a fundamental limit protected in the Constitution. You're attacking a strawman by then making a parallel about paper money, which is no fundamental limit.

He said that the Supreme Court couldn't read and that the Constitution only allowed for speech. I feel I am not building a strawman by suggesting that if that's the case, and you cannot infer other things from the Constitution, then paper money is a problem. You are free to disagree with my assessment but he started with the claim of it needing to be read completely literally without anything allowed extra.

 

[Tallguy88]

That isn't a law. Those are guidelines for handling the flag that do not carry the force of law.

It's in the United States Code, which is the law. There is simply no penalty for breaking that particular law.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

And...?

From your initial post you suggested that freedom of expression is not something enshrined, and that the flag-burning would be okay, when prominent originalists would disagree with you.