Should flag burners lose citizenship?

[Desk trauma]

Haven't seen someone burn him or his likeness lately as they are threats and can lead to arrest....

Burning the President in effigy is not uncommon. Hanging him in effigy has been more popular during the Obama administration.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What part of " If not for a burial of a flag" of my post didn't you read?

Why should that merit an exception to the rule?

 

[LouisBooth]

Then you countered your own argument. Burning a flag is not a direct threat to the country, per your own example of retiring a flag.

Nice back peddling. The burial of the flag is how its disposed and respect it's given. I'll just say our discussion is done since you've shown you really want to argue and not discuss and your points have no logic to them. Have a good day.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Then consider the following:

If the flag deserves special protection from disrespect because it's a symbol of America and all that, then shouldn't any symbol of America merit special protection for the same reason?

...including -- oh, I don't know -- the office of the Presidency?

If you can make it a crime to disrespect the flag, why can't you make it a crime to disrespect the president? Surely the leader of our glorious nation deserves as much respect as a flag...

I'm sure President-Elect Trump wouldn't mind the US going down this route... do we?

I didn't say I want it, I think it's a borderline case where you can look at it one way or another. There are plenty of laws in various countries about what is considered appropriate behavior in public, like f.e. going around naked, or urinating in public can be illegal etc. Not exactly comparable cases, but just to demonstrate that there can be laws to just help to keep the order and decency up.

It's really a matter of interpretation where the line should be. I am open for being convinced otherwise, but that's just a gut reaction of mine.

 

[RDKirk]

Then consider the following:

If the flag deserves special protection from disrespect because it's a symbol of America and all that, then shouldn't any symbol of America merit special protection for the same reason?

...including -- oh, I don't know -- the office of the Presidency?

If you can make it a crime to disrespect the flag, why can't you make it a crime to disrespect the president? Surely the leader of our glorious nation deserves as much respect as a flag...

I'm sure President-Elect Trump wouldn't mind the US going down this route... do we?

Now, the military does have regulations to prohibit soldiers from disrespecting the flag...and the presidency.

Even then, the military has severe boundaries on inhibiting the free speech of soldiers. For instance, a soldier--in uniform-- can speak negatively about a president as long as:

A. He does not use "contemptuous words." That is, he can say, "The president's statement is untrue," but he cannot say, "The president is a liar."

B. He does not make statements leading to or implying a justification for acts of mutiny, particularly if he is in a leadership position.

Now, the point I'm making here is that even being in the military does not totally abrogate the right to free expression. That's how resilient the First Amendment is.

 

[LouisBooth]

Why should that merit an exception to the rule?

same reason the SC gave. Malicious intent. It's not a political statement, it's a threat.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Burning the President in effigy is not uncommon. Hanging him in effigy has been more popular during the Obama administration.

It seemed to practically be an initiation ritual for the TEA Party once upon a time...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Now, the military does have regulations to prohibit soldiers from disrespecting the flag...and the presidency.

Even then, the military has severe boundaries on inhibiting the free speech of soldiers. For instance, a soldier--in uniform-- can speak negatively about a president as long as:

A. He does not use "contemptuous words." That is, he can say, "The president's statement is untrue," but he cannot say, "The president is a liar."

B. He does not make statements leading to or implying a justification for acts of mutiny, particularly if he is in a leadership position.

Now, the point I'm making here is that even being in the military does not totally abrogate the right to free expression. That's how resilient the First Amendment is.

Right -- and if we lived in a country where every citizen was placed under the same restrictions (if not more) than the military.... well, the phrase "Police State" comes to mind...

 

[Desk trauma]

It seemed to practically be an initiation ritual for the TEA Party once upon a time...

We have a republican administration on the way in, dissent is no longer patriotic.

 

[TLK Valentine]

same reason the SC gave. Malicious intent. It's not a political statement, it's a threat.

A threat to a flag? What right does cloth have from being threatened?

 

[TLK Valentine]

We have a republican administration on the way in, dissent is no longer patriotic.

We're quickly starting to see that any dissent is treasonous... as it was in the Bush II Regime.

 

[LouisBooth]

A threat to a flag? What right does cloth have from being threatened?

Sorry your premise is incorrect. They aren't burning a cloth, the political speech is saying burn America. If that is the case and it's just burning cloth, they need to burn a white cloth. I'm not going down the road of semantics and non-sense, sorry.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sorry your premise is incorrect. They aren't burning a cloth, the political speech is saying burn America.

And speech is protected in this country... "burn America!" even if you explicitly say it, isn't a specific enough threat to merit an exception to the first Amendment -- so it stands to reason that implying such a thing doesn't come close.

If that is the case and it's just burning cloth, they need to burn a white cloth. I'm not going down the road of semantics and non-sense, sorry.

You're already beating a dead horse, since a very conservative SCOTUS already decided against you... twice.

 

[variant]

so there are NO laws on the books that make you act a certain way if it doesn't cause harm to people? Are you sure? And you're also asserting that burning a flag doesn't cause harm to anyone?

I didn't say there weren't any, I'm saying I don't approve.

 

[LouisBooth]

You're already beating a dead horse, since a very conservative SCOTUS already decided against you... twice

I disagree. First, you should read my earlier posts to see how I voted. Second, SC has overturned their own statements, so I don't see this as an indicator.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Well for me I take offense to flag burning because we ARE america. If you want to go protest thats fine. But burning a flag is uncalled for. Its like I have met women that have come to america from my wifes country. Some of them say their country is better or they leave their husbands for greencards. While I can't tell them this, I want to say "Find go back to your country then!". I'm VERY patriotic in terms of loving the country, even if I don't always agree with somethings. If you don't like it here or use someone to get here, I'm more than happy to sign a petition to have you deported.

Because there are always other people who would die to get here. I mean literally come here facing death just to arrive. Thats also why when I see latinos from mexico burning flags I assume they are likely illegals or know illegals. I'm sorry but my wife and I fought hard to get her here, so when you cross the border illegally than I have no sympathy for you. I don't care how bad your country is or how hard the process is. Come here legally or stay where you are. Actually plead to change the laws in your country to make things easier then.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I disagree. First, you should read my earlier posts to see how I voted.

I would if I thought it relevant.

Second, SC has overturned their own statements, so I don't see this as an indicator.

After SCOTUS ruled in Texas v Johnson (1989), they got a quick opportunity to overturn themselves in United States v Eichman (1990) -- they didn't.

So... what's changed since then?

 

[LouisBooth]

I didn't say there weren't any, I'm saying I don't approve.

So then you're logically inconsistent IF there is one on the books?

 

[variant]

After SCOTUS ruled in Texas v Johnson (1989), they got a quick opportunity to overturn themselves in United States v Eichman (1990) -- they didn't.

So... what's changed since then?

The opportunity to pack the court?

 

[variant]

So then you're logically inconsistent IF there is one on the books?

No, my disapproval doesn't make the laws.

The Supreme Court would be inconsistent if they allow flag burning as free speech and disallow other forms of protesting with disrespect that don't harm others.