I think the point is that intent would be the only element.
Congrass needs to just apply penalties to the flag code. That would pretty much cover the flag burning issue.
It would also put an end to the desecration of the flag via advertising.
I don’t know what’s more disrepectful. Buring the flag out of protest or having a flag on your underware right across your cock.
Under this reasoning, a silent film would be ineligible for First Amendment protection. It’s not speech and it’s not press. A painting would be ineligible for First Amendment protection. Not speech, not press. The lyrics of a song would be protected but the music wouldn’t. Get serious.
That’s an interesting slope you’re standing atop. Looks mighty slippery though.
Well…you’re wrong. Sorry.
Ba dump SSSSS!
Penalties applied to the falag code would suffer the same Constitutional infirmities as state level statutes.
I can only speak for myself but I feel my cock is much more deserving of respect than the flag is, and burning my cock should definitely not be protected by the First amendment.
In considering a flag-burning amendment, the senate is already tacitly acknowledging that it is protected (even if it weren’t already explicitly deemed so by SCOTUS). So what’s your point?
This is just an academic exercise for you, isn’t it? You’re not interested in whether you’re arguing the correct thing; you just like the challenge of trying to defend. Attorney workout, huh?
The amendment doesn’t exempt flag burning from constitutional protection. It criminalizes it.
Does it bother you that it only seems a worthy use of time to them in election years? Does it make you wonder if they are discussing these issues earnestly?
I don’t know for sure, but I think I’d get into trouble if I burned your cock.
You don’t get it. The intent *itself * would be the crime, under this thing. An act of political speech would be legal or not depending on its intended meaning.
Or maybe you *do * get it and are just trying to play Professor Kingsfield with us again. Which is it?
Thanks, Bricker. It’s useful to have someone point out that we shouldn’t take rhetorical devices literally. :rolleyes:
Your post would have been more interesting if you’d addressed the substance of the question rather than nitpicking someone’s use of hyperbole.
Nor would private correspondence be protected, as it is written, and not spoken, if we carry Bricker’s literalism to its conclusion.
The Supreme Court has already decided that flag burning is symbolic expression and protected free speech. From Texas v. Johnson (1989):
It’s not a “jump” at all, it’s a settled decision. It’s also the only opinion that makes any sense. Of COURSE burning a flag in protest is a symbolic statement. What else could it be? There is nothing in the burning of cloth in itself that people find offensive or desecratory (and what the hell is “desecration” anyway? How can you desecrate a secular symbol?). As has been pointed out, burning is the customary method for disposing of old flags so the per se act of burning a flag is not “desecration” in every context. It’s only considered objectional when it’s patently done as a political statement. In other words, “desecration” is not defined as destruction of a flag but as what you’re thinking about while you do it. If that’s not the case, then what IS the case? What would be protected by the FBA? It doesn’t really protect flags.
So you think we could legislate our first thought crime without damaging the spirit of the Bill of Rights. Isn’t freedom of thought ultimately what the First Amendment seeks to protect? Can you tell me in what way punishing flag desecration punishes anything but the expression of an opinion?
Is flag burning less offensive or more offensive than swastikas or cross burnings? Is it less offensive or more offensive than calling a veteran a “baby-killer?”
I guess I’m trying to solicit an opinion from you as to why criminalizing the destruction of a piece of cloth (especially when it’s MY piece of cloth that I paid for and that I own) can theoretically be defended as anything BUt the supression of political expression. If it’s NOT a symbolic expression, what IS it? What would be punished if not the pure statement itself?
it would be the first crime in history that does not punish an act but only what you’re THINKING about during the act.
In order to forestall any defense that some crimes are defined by their intent (e.g. running someone over on purpose vs. backing into them by accident), I want to further clarify my above statement.
This would be the first crime in history which would not punish an intentional act but only what you’re THINKING about during an intentional act.
Personally, I’m a little hurt by this. I mean come on, are us gay guys wanting to get married not the biggest evil in the country anymore? Have they used up all the political milage from us already?? Beaten out by a strip of cloth, I’m miffed.
And just when I thought my evil “go directly to hell, do not pass go gay lifestyle” was the biggest threat to western civilization as we know it they come out with this. Humph.
The gay marriage amendment was so last week, you little bitch. 
Well, now that you have me wriggling in the crushing grip of reason…
No, it doesn’t.
Have you even read the amendment?
Flag! It’s like Fag with an ‘L’, so it’s 33% scarier!
Don’t worry, you guys aren’t the Big Scare anymore because their only step left is to amend the Constitution, and to do that would take balls.
So, I see people are still rising to Bricker’s bait? Tell, me, since campaign financing isn’t free speech either (assuming you’re not talking while handing over the check, I guess), those laws can’t be goverened by First Amendment either, right?
-Joe
Right, it only authorizes *Congress * to do so. :rolleyes:
You wouldn’t be simply trolling, would you?
Oh Please.
It is not a fucking jump, burning the flag in this context refers to burning it as a form of political expression. It is not a stretch to state that this is exactly the type of thing that was intended to be covered by the First Amendment.
This was an attempt at election year pandering to voters who love the symbols of freedom more than the actual freedom the symbols represent.