So basically, there should be a law authorizing citizens to use non-lethal force to prevent me from expressing my views? Fuck you.
BwanaBob, fine, your relative is offended. That’s too goddamned bad. Obviously, he cares more about that fucking flag than he does his country. PEOPLE are more important than some fucking piece of cloth.
I didn’t say the opinions of my relatives were the correct ones. I’m saying the fact that YOUR relative gets pissed by people burning the flag is not reason to burn it. It pisses me off when the Klan stages rallies.
Hey, guess what? It pisses me off when people say ADHD isn’t a real disorder. It pisses me off when people say that gays are going to Hell. But the difference between me and you is that I still support their right to say it. Apparently, you don’t.
By banning flag burning, you’re shitting on everything the flag stands for. Personally, our constitution gives me a hell of a lot more comfort than a goddamn flag.
I guess I’m not well-spoken enough to answer this properly. Obviously your choice of a llama figurine is silly because its special symbolic significance is no comparable to the flag. To me you’re comparing apples and oranges.
To be honest, if there was a proposal to ban burning of “any” religions holy book I would agree with that too, because the hurtfulness of that act supercedes it value as an expression of protest.
That’s why I likened it to hate speech, though Guinastasia seems to disagree.
But really, you could call it hate speech, but a more accurate term for cross-burnings would be “Intimidative actions”, or even Intimidation speech." True, I can burn a cross as part of an art project, but historically, that is not the meaning it is likely to send. It is more likely that if I see a cross burning on a front yard, I will assume that someone wants someone else to move out of the neighborhood.
You’re the one trying to argue that your relative’s opinion is the ‘correct’ one and that the Constitution should be changed to accomodate him.
The point is that his opinion doesn’t count any MORE than anyone else’s and that the rest of the American people are not obligated to refrain from any expression that he doesn’t like.
The witlessness of this remark is matched only by its irony.
[quoteToo bad there isn’t a smiley with a dick in its mouth because it would be really useful right now.[/QUOTE]
I think the hurtfulness goes beyond simple hurt feelings. Some could feel threatened.
Though I believe you disagree, I don’t see this as too different from the jerk who calls an African-American a nigger. Not the jerk who has a hood and a torch saying it because that’s obviously an imminent threat , but the guy who bumps into a black person on the street and says “outta my way nigger”.
Which, while terrible and wrong, he has every right to say it.
Again, if your relative is sobbing in his beer because I’m burning a flag, fuck him. He fought for everyone’s rights-not just the rights of people who agree with him.
Actually an interesting point of law: the Virginia law created a prima facie case for intent to intimidate – that is, if you burned a cross, the law presumed you intended to intimidate, with no other evidence. Burning a cross, according to Virginia, WAS intimidation, period.
What of it? Suppose we remove the inference and supposition, and cut right to the chase: large billboard-style signs in the front yard saying, “George and Louise Jefferson: We want you OUT of this neighborhood!”
Stop right there. The burning of a cross, or the painting of a swastika on a synagogue door, or similar acts already defined as hate crimes are not political expression, of the type we absolutely protect as one of our fundamental principles. They are not attempts at “expressive conduct”, they are acts intended to instill fear in their targets, nothing more.
The actions you describe are not “speech” at all, any more than my brandishing a weapon at you is “speech” - they are assault.
Are there any that should not? BwanaBob, is it a stretch for you to think that the flag our veterans fought for is a symbol of the right to political speech that was one of the things they fought to protect?
OK Bricker, what if that sign said “We want you out, If you do not leave, we will kill you, we have the means and the will to do it, and have done it to many others before you” Since that is what a burning cross really says. Do you find that unlawfully intimidating?
What I’m trying to demonstrate with my llama figurine example (I almost said penguin figurine at first, but I realized that really might be a sacred symbol to Linux fanatics ) is that emotional hurtfullness should not be a valid reason to make any law, especially one that abridges something as important as free speech. Desecrating a flag may be hurtful to you, but maybe it isn’t to me. You likely don’t give a shit about llama figurines, but my grandfather died in a car accident while racing home from Woolworths to get my mother a llama figurine in time for her birthday party.
Ok, not really. But it’s possible that something as mundane to you as a llama figurine is as “sacred” to me as the American Flag is to you or your family. What standard will we have for judging whether desecrating something is so hurtful that it must be protected above our right to free expression? Can only one person find it that sacred? How about a hundred? Over 50 percent of the population?
You brought up religious books. Is any book that anybody finds sacred to be protected from desecration? Or will the gov’t set up a committee to judge which religions are valid enough to have their book deemed non-desecratable? I’m sure you see the problems with that.
I doubt I’m going to convince you of my way of thinking of this, but I hope you can at least see where I’m coming from.
Folks, it was a joke, hence the smiley. Do you seriously think that I would support some sort of half-assed citizens flag militia running around out there? It’d be equivalent to the damned Islamic Law police running around in Saudi Arabia!
That said, flag burning has got to be one of the most counter-productive forms of protest out there. Again, I am against this politically-motivated, unnecessary amendment. But I still think flag burning is wrong, and anybody who does it ought to be ashamed of themselves.
) is that emotional hurtfullness should not be a valid reason to make any law, especially one that abridges something as important as free speech. Desecrating a flag may be hurtful to you, but maybe it isn’t to me. You likely don’t give a shit about llama figurines, but my grandfather died in a car accident while racing home from Woolworths to get my mother a llama figurine in time for her birthday party.