Let’s also keep in mind the PR aspects of flag-burning. Which is more likely to be covered and broadcast by the US media: A bunch of foreigners marching with banners written in a language most Americans can’t read, chanting slogans in that foreign language; or said bunch of foreigners waving signs with “Death to America” written in English, applauding as Old Glory is torched?
BwanaBob, I appreciate you being open minded enough to reconsider your views. That’s more than most people will do.
In an expressoin of “hatred” or anger? Something else to think about if you’re reconsidering.
I think the difference between a burning cross and the other symbols you mentioned is the implicit message it sends. Historically a burning cross sends blacks the message of “You’re not wanted here, get out or we will use violence agianst you”. The threat of phyiscal violence is what seperates a burning cross from other symbols. On the other hand, swastika’s, confederate flags and the hammer and cycle have not been closely associated with widespread violence in this country.
So fucking WHAT? There is no law anywhere that mandates that everyone has to love this country. Even if the person is burning the flag because they hate America, and because they hate veterans-SO WHAT? THAT IS THEIR RIGHT!!!
If by “around here” you mean this board, this is a privately owned message board, dumbass. The first amendment doesn’t apply here.
Guinastasia, I feel the way you do, including about the fact he hasn’t responded to my post. However, please remember he confessed to having some thinking to do,
You’ve certainly spent enough time harassing those who *have * about it. At some point you have to start carrying your own share of the load here, though.
BwanaBob, good on yer, mate.
A google search on “swastika + hate crime” is not proof, and you know it. Why don’t you just admit that you made a mistake?
Time for you to fuck off, isn’t it? :putz:
The topic is flag-burning. You could choose to contribute to the discussion, but have chosen not to.
Here’s a mistake I made: Miscoding :putz:
Is flag burning offensive?
yes, it is.
I think we need to separate thoughts, feelings and actions here.
I feel that burning the flag is(sometimes) offensive–I am offended when someone does it.
I think that burning the flag is a type of free speech and can be quite effective in getting an issue some attention.
I have not yet acted on either my feelings or my thoughts–but if this amendment passes, I will purchase a flag and burn it(and feel silly doing so*, and think that the cops are coming to get me–but I will do it, nonetheless.)
- It’s a grand gesture and I am not given much to grand gestures.
Here’s another one: :wally
Am I missing something? None of the links on the first page showed a situation where display of a swastika was deemed to be illegal hate speech. The ones that aren’t message boards seem to indicate situations where vandalizing **someone else’s property **by painting swastikas was seen to be a hate crime. That’s rather a different situation, isn’t it?
No, you’re not missing anything. **Elvis **likes to make shit up to bolster his arguments, then when someone calls him on it, he throws up a smokescreen (like that raw google search) or claims that you are changing the subject.
He’s doing the exact same thing over in the **Durbin **thread right now, too.
No, I am pretty sure that’s you. 
No, he’s right. It’s Elvis. See his inaccurate screed/rant in Great Debates about the “Pubbies”. When it was proved that he was in error, he at first ignored it from one member, and then said I was “nitpicking” when I brought it up myself. He had said that Bush put Tomlinson on the CPB, when in fact Clinton did. It is difficult to imagine the sort of intellectual emptiness that is required to refuse the admission of error — especially on the SDMB.
Not really. The crime isn’t the vandalism (rather, that’s a separate crime), but the hate itself. Certainly you can brandish a swastika without vandalizing property. There are, in fact, a number of links on that page that demonstrate that - and no, I don’t propose to get into it further without a demonstration of relevance to the topic of the thread, though.
Then I am being dumb here. Which of the links shows a constitutionally valid law in the US for display of a swastika?
I tried looking up “swastika” and “hate crime” and “guilty” on my Lexis/Nexis account, just to see what sort of connection there might be. The results tended to show that those charged and convicted with hate crimes for displaying swastikas had generally painted those symbols on someone else’s property out of a desire to intimidate and threaten.
Here are some examples from the stories i found. I can’t give links, because Lexis/Nexis requires a subscription.
and
and
and
There were other examples, but they were all in the same vein. I didn’t find any examples where anyone was convicted for placing a swastika on their own property. I’d be interested to know whether such action could, in fact, be prosecuted as a hate crime if a case could be made that its intention was to threaten, harrass, or intimidate.