Trump to sign executive order directing AG to prosecute flag desecration

[Tropical Wilds]

I am proud of the free speech, even the speech I do not like. Remember, it is the left who tries to censor language they do not like. Again, I am proud that the US has better freedoms of speech that the UK.

Then it’s nice to hear you support flag burning.

 

[RDKirk]

I said this in the other flag burning thread, and I'll repeat it here:

Trump is attempting to tie flag burning to various state laws that prohibit altercations cause by "fighting words" in the manner that those laws have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

But the Supreme Court was very, very specific as to what "fighting words" mean. "Fighting words" as defined by the Supreme Court (and as has been applied by state courts) are not something that merely make some given Tom, Dick, or Harry somewhere angry enough to take a poke at someone.

The US Supreme Court, in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, defined "fighting words" as speech directed at a specific person, face-to-face, and so personally insulting or provocative that it is likely to cause that individual to fight back right then and there.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Then it’s nice to hear you support flag burning.

I support a person's right to burn a flag, not the flag burning itself. It's nice to hear you support pride flag burning.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I didnt weaponize anything. I only pointed out the fact that white women on the thread are trying to explain racism to black men. Some would call that "whitesplaining."

You weaponized my race and yours, literally, just above. And I repeat, you no idea what it’s like to be a woman but you claimed more about the subject than I do and it didn’t bother you.

So, again, you can feign ignorance and play these games with other people, but you’re not going to get anywhere with me.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I said this in the other flag burning thread, and I'll repeat it here:

Trump is attempting to tie flag burning to various state laws that prohibit altercations cause by "fighting words" in the manner that those laws have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

But the Supreme Court was very, very specific as to what "fighting words" mean. "Fighting words" as defined by the Supreme Court (and as has been applied by state courts) are not something that merely make some given Tom, Dick, or Harry somewhere angry enough to take a poke at someone.

The US Supreme Court, in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, defined "fighting words" as speech directed at a specific person, face-to-face, and so personally insulting or provocative that it is likely to cause that individual to fight back right then and there.

That is correct. So there should be no reason for anyone to be upset with Trump's EO.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Sure Jan.

Your admission of guilt is noted, though if you’re going to pull a me to spare yourself the embarrassment of admitting I bested you on another topic, at least use the gif. So…

 

[RDKirk]

That is correct. So there should be no reason for anyone to be upset with Trump's EO.

Sure, it's just another of his actions intended to excite his base and otherwise just cause chaos.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Sure, it's just another of his actions intended to excite his base and otherwise just cause chaos.

Probably.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Your admission of guilt is noted, though if you’re going to pull a me to spare yourself the embarrassment of admitting I bested you on another topic, at least use the gif. So…

View attachment 369283

Okay. "Sure Jan" is an admission of guilt to you. I will remember that the next time you use it so I am not confusing it with passive aggressive dismissal. Would you like to address the OP topic now?

 

[Bradskii]

Nevermind, I forgot you live in Australia. It is unfortunate that your country does not give you the same liberties that the US provides its citizens.

Maybe you misunderstood. Our government is warning us about travel to the US. They are suggesting that if you have said something that Trump and his minions don't like then you may be refused entry.

'I think Trump is deranged'.

Just that one comment might well be enough to have me turned back at the border.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Maybe you misunderstood. Our government is warning us about travel to the US. They are suggesting that if you have said something that Trump and his minions don't like then you may be refused entry.

'I think Trump is deranged'.

Just that one comment might well be enough to have me turned back at the border.

What are they basing that warning on?

Has there been a single documented case of a person getting turned away at the border for merely "saying something conservatives don't like"?

Given that our universities have quite a few people who are foreign students (who quite clearly don't like the country) who managed to make their way in and organize rallies and protests, clearly they're not checking everyone's Facebook posting history at the border.

 

[Bradskii]

What are they basing that warning on?

Has there been a single documented case of a person getting turned away at the border for merely "saying something conservatives don't like"?

From here: Incoming Harvard Freshman Deported After Visa Revoked | News | The Harvard Crimson

'She said that she found people posting political points of view that oppose the US on my friends list. The officer then cancelled Ajjawi's visa, informed him he would be deported...

 

[Bradskii]

...clearly they're not checking everyone's Facebook posting history at the border.

Did someone say that they were?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

From here: Incoming Harvard Freshman Deported After Visa Revoked | News | The Harvard Crimson

'She said that she found people posting political points of view that oppose the US on my friends list. The officer then cancelled Ajjawi's visa, informed him he would be deported...

So they're basing the warning on a solitary visa revocation case from 2019...that ultimately ended in visa reinstatement?

Perhaps "travel warnings" a viewed differently in Australia, but typically here, travel warnings pertain to things like short term vacation travel.

For instance, if I were looking to establish a residency in Canada, I would undergo more scrutiny than I would if I were looking to make a weekend trip to Niagara falls.

 

[Bradskii]

So they're basing the warning on a solitary visa revocation case from 2019...that ultimately ended in visa reinstatement?

Perhaps "travel warnings" a viewed differently in Australia, but typically here, travel warnings pertain to things like short term vacation travel.

For instance, if I were looking to establish a residency in Canada, I would undergo more scrutiny than I would if I were looking to make a weekend trip to Niagara falls.

From here: Australia's travel advice for the US has toughened three times since April

'The Department of Foreign Affairs has toughened its travel advice for the USA three times in just over a month in response to the Trump administration's increasingly harsh border controls.

While DFAT has not changed the USA's overall rating from green, which means "exercise normal safety precautions", it has beefed up warnings about being detained at the border and requirements to carry identification while travelling within the country.

The series of changes in April and earlier this month came as Australian holiday travel to the US plunged after a crackdown in which border authorities detained and deported visitors and searched electronic devices. '

My wife and I have cancelled plans to visit the US next year.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The series of changes in April and earlier this month came as Australian holiday travel to the US plunged after a crackdown in which border authorities detained and deported visitors and searched electronic devices. '

My wife and I have cancelled plans to visit the US next year.

Is that because you actually believe you'd be turned away at the border, or is it more of a "make a statement in solidarity" thing?

Honest question....

While the article you linked is certainly going for an "attention grabbing" tone, is there any evidence to suggest that this is a "systemic" issue, where phones and social media profiles are getting reviewed when the plane lands at LAX?

 

[Bradskii]

Is that because you actually believe you'd be turned away at the border...

If our Department of Foreign affairs deems it necessary to warn Australians about the risk then we're not going to take that risk.

While the article you linked is certainly going for an "attention grabbing" tone, is there any evidence to suggest that this is a "systemic" issue, where phones and social media profiles are getting reviewed when the plane lands at LAX?

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade doesn't post warnings as clickbait.