Should flag burners lose citizenship?

[TLK Valentine]

No urnot.

Clearly then the Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to cover more than just "speech."

Lemme check...um, the name above that speech says "Chesterton".

The name above the writing, you mean... surely this "Chesterton" fellow knows the difference between speech and writing, doesn't he?

 

[PeachyKeane]

By the way, what do you folks think the chances are, that if Trump tweeted that flag burning should be completely legal, all of these Trump Supporters would be singing a different tune on here?

 

[variant]

"Speech" is only spoken. If the Founding Fathers believed the written word should be protected, they would have said so, amirite?

Well they specifically protected the press, but most of our writing is done digitally now.

 

[variant]

By the way, what do you folks think the chances are, that if Trump tweeted that flag burning should be completely legal, all of these Trump Supporters would be singing a different tune on here?

I don't think I would be here to argue with them.

 

[TLK Valentine]

By the way, what do you folks think the chances are, that if Trump tweeted that flag burning should be completely legal, all of these Trump Supporters would be singing a different tune on here?

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest -- the followers wait for their Great Leader to speak, so they can chant "me too!"

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well they specifically protected the press, but most of our writing is done digitally now.

Ah, but "the Press" might only refer to professional printers, who used an actual printing press.

They never did say all writing, just as they never said "expression," did they?

 

[expos4ever]

Black Friday could incite violence. How does flag burning incite violence?

As I have already written, I suggest it is a priori plausible that fire is "burned" onto our neurons (pun intended) as the ultimate symbol of mindless destruction. Fire destroys, and it does so in a chaotic and uncontrollable manner. It is hard to think of something that would be a better symbol to incite the inner "irrational man" that seeks to wreak destruction as the means to solve a problem.

I am puzzled that people do not see this - I suggest it is no coincidence that flag-burning is often, not always I concede but nevertheless often, accompanied by frenzied, out-of-control chants for the death of some group of people.

Fire is so primal, and so destructive and chaotic that I believe its use in symbolic burnings presents a risk for incitement to violence that is higher than for other forms of "speech".

 

[PeachyKeane]

As I have already written, I suggest it is a priori plausible that fire is "burned" onto our neurons (pun intended) as the ultimate symbol of mindless destruction. Fire destroys, and it does so in a chaotic and uncontrollable manner. It is hard to think of something that would be a better symbol to incite the inner "irrational man" that seeks to wreak destruction as the means to solve a problem.

Well...Black Friday.

I am puzzled that people do not see this

Consider that it's hooey.

- I suggest it is no coincidence that flag-burning is often, not always I concede but nevertheless often, accompanied by frenzied, out-of-control chants for the death of some group of people.

Yeah, you never see good out-of-control chants for death without fire.

Fire is so primal, and so destructive and chaotic that I believe its use in symbolic burnings presents a risk for incitement to violence that is higher than for other forms of "speech".

Which has caused more riots? Fire, or the Vancouver Canucks losing the Stanley Cup finals?

 

[Desk trauma]

Well they specifically protected the press, but most of our writing is done digitally now.

This reminds me of my favorite bit of counter snark. Meme A suggests that the second amendment should only apply to eighteenth century arms. Meme B replies does that mean the first amendment should only protect eighteenth century methods of communication?

OT I know but there it is.

 

[psalms 91]

This country if you are a part of it deserves a level of respect. The flag is a part of that. You dont have to agree with everything the country dioes butyou should have a love of it that would prevent you from doing something like this and while we are on it I look at Colin Kapernink and wonder why he is still playing football. Disrespect like that towards our National Athem should kick him out. Playing in the NFL is not a right but a privelege and that behavior should not be tolorated. I dont like Trump but I do respect the office he will hold or should I disrespect him

 

[Chesterton]

Clearly then the Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to cover more than just "speech."

No. Putting "clearly then" in front of an assertion doesn't make it follow from the previous statement. You need something more than that, like a dictionary from the time, which as I mentioned before only supports the idea that "speech" is verbal communication, oral and written.

The name above the writing, you mean... surely this "Chesterton" fellow knows the difference between speech and writing, doesn't he?

Speech and writing are both speech.

Ah, but "the Press" might only refer to professional printers, who used an actual printing press.

They never did say all writing, just as they never said "expression," did they?

Do you think "the press" just meant newspaper reporters, as we use it today?

 

[TLK Valentine]

No. Putting "clearly then" in front of an assertion doesn't make it follow from the previous statement. You need something more than that, like a dictionary from the time, which as I mentioned before only supports the idea that "speech" is verbal communication, oral and written.


Speech and writing are both speech.

Are you asserting, then, that artwork is not covered, as it is not verbal?

Do you think "the press" just meant newspaper reporters, as we use it today?

Don't you?

 

[Chesterton]

Are you asserting, then, that artwork is not covered, as it is not verbal?

What, like a Jackson Pollock?

Don't you?

No.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What, like a Jackson Pollock?

Like any artwork.

 

[Chesterton]

Like any artwork.

Well that may be a good question, but either way it won't get you an inch closer to flag-burning.

 

[PeachyKeane]

This country if you are a part of it deserves a level of respect. The flag is a part of that. You dont have to agree with everything the country dioes butyou should have a love of it that would prevent you from doing something like this and while we are on it I look at Colin Kapernink and wonder why he is still playing football. Disrespect like that towards our National Athem should kick him out. Playing in the NFL is not a right but a privelege and that behavior should not be tolorated. I dont like Trump but I do respect the office he will hold or should I disrespect him

You're saying the National Anthem and flag are sacred?

 

[LouisBooth]

It could, but let's deal in what's plausible before engaging in flights of fancy... and it's going to take a drastic change in the court's makeup before they reverse such a decision... and the kind of people who would want that have been trying for decades to do it to Roe v Wade (1973), with zero success, and more recently to Obergefell v Hodges (2015).

They failed, as bad ideas tend to do.

I love how that you don't agree with something it's a flight of fancy or a bad idea. that's a mark of a poor thinker. As I stated, it's shown they overturn themselves, so yes, it can and probably will happen again. I see no reason to think otherwise.

If you can't figure out the difference between threatening to commit first-degree murder and burning a piece of fabric in protest, then there is really no point in continuing a conversation on this subject with you.

And as I stated, that's a protest anymore then chanting death to the "insert family name here". They aren't talking to a specific person. I don't mind you not replying to me, but don't snipe a comment and expect me not to reply if I disagree. There isn't a difference between the two as I stated, both a malicious in nature.

 

[psalms 91]

I am saying that if you are a citizen then they both deserve respect whether you agree with certain things or not, it is offensive to see the flag burned or the National athem disrespectedand those that do such things should be made to know that that is not behavior that will be tolorated

 

[PeachyKeane]

I am saying that if you are a citizen then they both deserve respect whether you agree with certain things or not

Why? It's a piece of cloth and a song.

, it is offensive to see the flag burned or the National athem disrespectedand those that do such things should be made to know that that is not behavior that will be tolorated

So we should punish people or being offensive?

 

[psalms 91]

Is it punishment to take away a privelege or is it only one sided that you are allowed to express yourself and put forth your beliefs