So…just because you believe it to be on thing, that makes it so? No matter what, anytime someone burns a flag in proteest it’s because they hate veterans, America, mom and apple pie? They couldn’t possibly be burning the flag because they are simply outraged at the current state of the government? I have had several relatives and friends who were/are in the military, including my own grandfather, a WWII POW. If I were to burn a flag, I guess that no matter what it means I hate my grandfather? I think it quite the opposite. He would be the last person I know to burn a flag, but, were he alive today, he would still be disgusted that the government is telling him what he can and can’t burn on his own damn property. It’s his flag, he paid for it, and if he wants to waste his fifteen bucks by putting a zippo to it, he has every fucking right to do so! And so I guess if he did, he’s just be spitting on himself and the rest of the crew of his plane? Hardly.
Please don’t assume that jsut because you think something to be true, it is.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Yes, I *mentioned * swastika-painting, in response to **Bricker’**s inappropriate attempt to equate flag-burning with established hate crimes with established reasoning behind them. He was wrong to do so and that needed to be pointed out. He hasn’t been back, and the claim hasn’t been pressed further by anyone but you.
Look, pal, if you don’t think hate crime is relevant to a flag-burning discussion, you have no reason to continue yammering away about it. If you do think it’s relevant, then explain yourself. But please accept a little responsibility.[/QUOTE
There’s actually two things gong on here:
I believe you made a claim that putting up a swastika on a billboard across the street from a synagogue is considered a hate crime. I’m just asking for a cite. I’m not claiming that you’re wrong, but I’m not certain you’re right, either.
Then there’s the discussion about hate crimes, and I haven’t weighed in on that yet.
No, and I’ll make the same point I did in my follow-up post regarding Prohibition: Amendment XIII states that slavery/involuntary servitude is not permissible (Section I) and Section II states that Congress may make laws to enforce it.
My quarrel (albeit a semantic one) is that the amendments you have referred to in previous posts specifically state that a behavior/action is not permissible & then provide for Congress to enforce the position by creating laws against it. The proposed amendment DOESN’T state that the action/behavior is not permissible at all, just that Congress may make a law to prohibit physical desecration of the flag.
This is why I say that there is a problem with the “spirit” of the law; of course, if rulings are made based on the current status of the Constitution, and something happens to show that it should be done differently, it is the responsibility of Congress to create & pass a law to change it. I do understand that’s how it works. However, rather than actually coming out and saying “this is a bad thing” in the amendment, they are simply giving themselves the means to abolish it because SCOTUS isn’t giving the answer they want, essentially.
And I’ll echo the sentiments of several other posters: if they feel that taking away our freedoms is essential to protect this symbol, then maybe that symbol doesn’t stand for what I think it does - and that desecrates it in my eyes.
Though you meant it as a joke, does not mean it has not been considered. There was a bill proposed to the Tennessee legislature a while back to make assault on a person invovled in the act of flag desecration to be punishable by a maximum $1 fine. The state Attorney General advised it would be unconstitutional. My First Amendment Professor (certainly not authoritarian) thought this was a wrong interpretation, and the law would pass muster. Whoever was right (and for what it’s worth, I think the AG was) it is certainly a close enough issue to allow debate. And the fact it was proposed to a state legislature means it is not as much of a joke as we all might hope.
Sigh, protesters will resort to burning the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence, while saying that these icons has already been ‘burned’ beyond repair.
So…will Congress work to have the burning of these two works banned? What if someone then burns, say, the Koran or the Bible? Will Congress work to ban such desecrations as well?
Maybe, in some twisted way, it could turn into a reverse Fahrenheit 451 situation, in that no paper will be allowed to get ‘desecrated’. Doubt it.
You rationally tell me that you don’t hate the country and believe that you are expressing political discontent by flag burning. Okay. I guess my problem with this is that the vermin overseas who truly hate us do the same thing; they in effect have co-opted that act and in my eyes (and apparently others) have turned the act into an act of hate.
BwanaBob]they in effect have co-opted that act and in my eyes
[/QUOTE]
Ok, so people oversea hate ‘merica. That has (My fav. phrase) fuckall to do with what happens here. Really, they burn the flag for one reason. People here burn the flag for another reason.
Not only my opinion, but other share it. I guess only your opinion counts.
Am I using the term incorrectly? Around here if someone taunts someone with ethnic slurs that’s considered hate speech and they get in a shit load of trouble.
I used to respect you, and believe it or not agree with many of your opinions, just not in this case. I guess 999 out of a 1000 makes me a moron. Thanks for fighting ignorance.
Trying to classify flag burning as a hate crime is just stupid. A hate crime necessarily requires a.) a victim, and b.) a CRIME. A “hate crime” is simply a crime (i.e. something that is ALREADY a crime) in which a victim is targeted for reasons of race/ethnicity/religion/sex/sexual orienation, etc. It describes motivation for an act, not the act itself and so-called hate-crime laws simply allow judges to consider a hate-based motivation as an aggravating factor in sentencing.
Burning a flag does not involve either a victim or a criminal act. It’s just speech. Speech is not a hate crime. Even hate speech is not a hate crime.
For Christ’s sake. I suppose that in some instances, flag burning could be construed as part of “hateful” speech. Someone burns a flag and yells “I hate Bush.”
But it certainly doesn’t HAVE to be in association with hatefull speech, and it probably isn’t usually associated thusly. If I burn a flag to protest the Iraq war, it’s the war I hate, not a person or group of persons.
Bob: You are not going to win this argument. You are simply wrong.
Just because others share it doesn’t mean they’re right. Flag burning (by American protestors, at least) is an expression of dissent against the government, not an expression of hate for US miltitary veterans.
Hate speech is forbidden on this message board but it isn’t a crime. It seems to me like you’re conflating hate speech per se, which is protected free speech, with hate crimes which are defined as crimes motivated by hate.
I apologize for my frustration but I seem to be having difficulty getting the point across to you that hate speech, in itself, does not constute a hate crime in the US.
I thought this was an exchange of opinions, not a debate where there is a right and wrong. So, if this amendment comes to pass, would that make me right?
Oddly enough, I have no issue with people burning pictures of Bush or Cheney or
Rumsfeld, I feel like doing it myself sometimes. I guess I can’t verbalize what it is about the flag that makes me think it special and off-limits from political protest.
Again, I “feel” this way, it is an opinion on something that does not have a factual answer.
Like I said to JohnMace, I’m at a loss as to what it is that makes me hold burning the flag in a different light compared to “conventional” forms of protest.
I guess I’ve seen too many news reports showing non-citizens crapping all over our flag in their expressions of hatred.
However, I’m firmly of the opinion that even if it were an act guaranteed to be one of hate under all circumstances, I’d still be against making it illegal. I have no problem with people expressing hate, as long as they aren’t inciting violence.
We shouldn’t legislate based on the emotion of one committing an act. That smacks of Orwell.
It’s also not clear to me that people overseas who burn the U.S. flag are always doing it because they hate Americans. It seems to me that many or even possible most do it for the same reasons we are discussing: they are opposed to the U.S. government and are protesting its actions. I’ve seen evidence (via interviews and so on on the news) that many protestors make a clear distinction between the people of the U.S. and the polivies of the U.S government.
If Voltaire, a classical conservative, were here, he would say, “I may not agree with what you burn, but I will defend to the death your right to burn it.” If you are free to take offense, then other men should be free to give it. Defending an action, and defending the right to engage in that action are not the same.
