Hang on - keep tabs on? You mean spy on the populace right?
Let’s see how it sounds if you phrase it differently.
Oh, crap, I think you’ve got it.
No, seriously, I’m glad the House passed this, 'cos now it goes to the Senate. I want a list of names of those who think a freaking heraldic symbol is uniquely sacred or that the First & Fourteenth Amendments go too far. I want their names.
What some people seem to be missing is that there have been laws prohibiting flag descration in parts of the United States. Maybe it didn’t occur to people that this would be seen as political speech. But the Supreme Court struck these laws down about a dozen years ago.
There is a fair argument to be made that certain types of physical activity as public protest are not protected as actual activity, though the expression of their sentiment through actual speech is protected, & their artistic representation in the press is protected. That is, I can advocate flag desecration, & someone else can advocate flag worship or the cockamamie theory that flags are the universal symbol of countries :rolleyes: , but I can still be prohibited from painting an upside-down flag on the steps of the local county courthouse, or burning a flag in a protest, for other reasons. Not because it’s the flag, mind. It would be just as illegal to paint a caricature of Mussolini on those steps, or to burn someone in effigy.
What the proposed amendment does is concede the point to the Supreme Court decision that considers flag-burning protected speech. And it only protects an arbitrary heraldic emblem. By implication, it declares only this symbol protected, & makes of it an idol. All other symbols are therefore now, according to those who vote for this, fair game. That’s a big mistake.
Instead of making the argument that freedom of speech does not extend to freedom of any fool expression anywhere, they chose one (rather silly) item to protect from desecration, therefore effectively declaring it Constitutionally protected to do all of the following:
Burn in effigy anyone, anywhere, so long as I have a burn permit.
Caricature in effigy anyone, pretty much unrestricted, & portray them however I wish. Physically.
Display, in public, images of Lady Liberty taking it up the ass from the Washington Monument.
Burn images of the Constitution.
Smash, burn, smear with shit or what have you, so long as I don’t destroy anyone else’s property or otherwise break another law, images of bald eagles, the Great Seal of the President of the United States, the Liberty Bell, the Bible, Jesus, the Ten Commandments, George Washington, the Capitol building, or Elvis.
Burn crosses, KKK style.
All constitutionally protected. Huh. But the flag? Oh, it’s an idol now.
Well, like Mohammed, I believe in smashing false gods. How 'bout you?
As a direct response to the OP, no, I would never burn the flag, even though it is legal, and I oppose an amendment protecting it.
The only protection the flag should need is the deep regard of the country it stands for. If the country doesn’t have it, the flag is meaningless. I love my country, served in it’s military, and I just couldn’t do it. I also think that most who do it are brainless yahoos, but our right to free speech protects even flag burners, assholes though they may be.
No, I mean keep tabs on, something which is currently happening with certain groups of anti-American, homophobic, racist flagdesecrators, such as this group for example, incase anybody desires a cite:
http://www.islamicthinkers.com/index/index.php
Sorry, I am not responsible for the rantings of your Mr. Somebody. If you take issue with what Mr. Somebody wrote, then I suggest you take it up with that poster.
I’m sorry, I might be slow today, but I don’t see in your link where “keeping tabs” is defined, or anything about who might be keeping tabs on this group, or how. Little help?
There is no help for a Magilla Gorilla for sale, Magilla Gorilla for sale. He is saying just what people thinks he is saying, but he (I gather from his writting) thinks of it as a good , non-hermful thing, while most anyone else thinks of it as a bad thing.
I am keeping tabs on them, as are many other Americans.
They do live in the same city as me afterall, and just as I am aware of sexual predators and convicted pedophiles residing in my neighborhood, I am also well aware of anti-American, homophobic, racist flagdesecrators and Jihadis which happen to be in the area.
I know this is really another argument, but are you not suggesting that we ought to ‘keep tabs on’ people who do not agree with us?
Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting, especially for those who openly admire our enemies which have slaughtered thousands of Americans, and those who wish for our destruction in a time when we are at war. I support deportation proceedings and/or internment camps for those types.
Sure he is, and he’s quite right to do so. While I do not agree with his seemingly blanket condemnation of anyone who would burn a flag in protest, I agree completely that it’s a citizen’s duty to watch and listen. I know it can be taken too far, and the idea of an “informant culture” is abhorrent, but I see nothing wrong with monitoring the likes of, say, Westboro Baptist Church.
I understand, MG, thanks.
You see?
Now that I cannot get behind. The Alien and Sedition Acts are a thing of the past, thank Kdapt. The idea of deporting or imprisoning people for exercise of their Constitutional rights disturbs and repulses me.
Yes, people needn’t worry I suppose. Everything is far too “PC” nowadays for anything like that to happen, unless something really, really bad happened in the future, then people’s opinions will change quickly perhaps.
Sure, we could decide to become a police state. And monkeys might well fly out of my ass.
I’m sorry you find the First Amendment to be “PC.” Whatever you mean by the term.
Stan Smith, is that you?
“Sorry I’m late, I was getting a piping-hot cup of coffee. It’s far too hot to drink, but luckily my leathery man-mouth can take it.”
I am fairly certain that the First Amendment was not meant as a document of self destruction back when the original wig wearing folks wrote it, and if somebody flatly states rhetoric which is threatening to the security of our country, then surely there must be something that could be done about that.
Wait a second, I think there exists such a law already, which in this case would supersede the First Amendment:
*Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. ***
I do not believe that liberty is self-destructive. It’s remotely possible that political speech can “[threaten] the security of our country,” I suppose, but I think you’d have to show me specifics and then explain why the possible damage cause is worse than abandonment of liberty. As has been said, those who would give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither.
And with all respect, I’m not sure you or I are the ones to determine what constitutes treason.
But you see, my liberties are just fine, so I won’t be sacrificing anything. I wish to give up the liberties of those who side with the enemy.
Yes, you are correct, I am certainly no legal expert on the US constitution, nor do I claim to be one, but I do know how to read plain english, and if people take the First Amendment to mean what it says, then it would only be common sense to interpert the Treason law in a similiar fashion.
or in adhering to their Enemies
There are people inside the USA which definitely adheres to our enemies.
If they’re not going to use that law, then perhaps the govt should just ditch it. Otherwise it’s just taking up unnecessary space.
A couple of things:
I do not recall a formal declaration of war. I may be wrong, please feel free to correct me if I am.
I live in the US, am not a citizen, and wholeheartedly do not support the actions undertaken of this administration. Would MG have me deported? how about cast into an internment camp?
I know MG says that his/her freedoms are not under threat. Wanna bet? The removal of freedoms is a gradual process mate. First you take the ones ‘nobody uses’. Then you start on the others. Governments that do this have a habit of marginalising stuff like a free press - making it known that the free press is perhaps unpatriotic, maybe even treasonous. Then they get rid of it. Eventually everything that do not explicitly conform to policy is deemed dangerous and banned.
If we allow the state to remove any freedoms, they will come for more.
UnwrittenNocturne (who lived in a country immediately post military coup for a while)