• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should burning the US flag in America be illegal?

Should burning the US flag in America be illegal?

  • Total voters
    56
No, as an expression of freedom of speech, flag burning should be legal. However, I would say where they burn the flag could be considered dangerous and illegal. Plus it must be a flag that the one burning it owns.
 
Goshin said:
It offends me deeply to see the US flag being burned as a act of protest....

BUT I don't think it should be illegal. This is a free country.
Click to expand...

I should have edited that last line to read thus...


"BUT I don't think it should be illegal. This is a free country... you have the right to be an ungrateful pathetic little asshole if you want."

:mrgreen:
 
Goshin said:
"... This is a free country... you have the right to be an ungrateful pathetic little asshole if you want."
:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Which begs a lot of questions, like how is engaging in a freedom the flag stands for being ungreatful and pothetic just because it involves a symbol of the country, and doesn't actually harm anybody?

It seems like a lot of the reasoning against it [flag burning] comes from hypocritical butthurt,m but that's just me.
 
The 1st amendment is a pretty useless document if it only protects speech we all agree with.
 
digsbe said:
No, as an expression of freedom of speech, flag burning should be legal. However, I would say where they burn the flag could be considered dangerous and illegal. Plus it must be a flag that the one burning it owns.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course -- it should be treated the same as any other piece of fabric. You can't just burn something anywhere you want at any time.
 
I've never felt a particularly strong urge to burn any nation's flag.

I do not think it is morally wrong to burn any nation's flag.

I do not think flag-burning should be illegal in any way, shape or form provided that the destroyer of the flag owns it as private property and the incineration is handled responsibly.



That said, some of the characterizations I've read about flag-burners in this thread are making me want to burn a flag right now. :lol:
 
I have a question, would it be ok to burn the LGBT flag in protest of gay marriage? Or would that be a hate crime?
 
It absolutely positively should not be considered a hate crime in any way, but it would definitely make you a hopeless bigot. :D
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
It absolutely positively should not be considered a hate crime in any way, but it would definitely make you a hopeless bigot. :D
Click to expand...

would burning an American flag also make someone a hopeless bigot against America? I think flag burning only exists as a anger inciting form of protest and is classless, but people have the right to do so.
 
digsbe said:
would burning an American flag also make someone a hopeless bigot against America? I think flag burning only exists as a anger inciting form of protest and is classless, but people have the right to do so.
Click to expand...

If I were to burn the American flag, it would be because I hate the government, not because I hate the country.


TED,
Who loves his home, hates his government, and has for some time now.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
If I were to burn the American flag, it would be because I hate the government, not because I hate the country.


TED,
Who loves his home, hates his government, and has for some time now.
Click to expand...
Could burning the LGBT flag mean that someone hates the homosexual movement and not homosexuals themselves? what about burning the Christian flag?

My point is something we both agree on. We should be able to burn any flag or symbol without it being called hate speech. The whole concept of hate speech in my opinion is very foolish and should be abolished.
 
digsbe said:
Could burning the LGBT flag mean that someone hates the homosexual movement and not homosexuals themselves? what about burning the Christian flag?
Click to expand...

There is no one organization or authority which can legitimately claim that flag as its symbol. As such, no.

I wasn't aware there even IS a Christian flag. I think if there were a vatican flag, one could burn it to protest the actions of the Holy See without being a bigot with respect to Christianity or Catholicism in general.

digsbe said:
My point is something we both agree on. We should be able to burn any flag or symbol without it being called hate speech. The whole concept of hate speech in my opinion is very foolish and should be abolished.
Click to expand...

Yep, with you there.
 
digsbe said:
Could burning the LGBT flag mean that someone hates the homosexual movement and not homosexuals themselves? what about burning the Christian flag?

My point is something we both agree on. We should be able to burn any flag or symbol without it being called hate speech. The whole concept of hate speech in my opinion is very foolish and should be abolished.
Click to expand...

Concept of X should be abolished... hmmm ... how do you abolish a concept? Hate Speech: "Speech that has the effect of inciting hatred toward a definable, usually already oppressed, group of people." Well, the fact is, certain speech simply does exactly that. What are you going to do? Abolish the fact that it does that?

Or are you trying to tell us that we shouldn't be offended when people engage in speech that has the effect of inciting hatred toward definable, usually already oppressed, groups of people? Well, I am perfectly comfortable being offended at this type of speech, and don't mind letting people know it.
 
Dezaad said:
Concept of X should be abolished... hmmm ... how do you abolish a concept? Hate Speech: "Speech that has the effect of inciting hatred toward a definable, usually already oppressed, group of people." Well, the fact is, certain speech simply does exactly that. What are you going to do? Abolish the fact that it does that?

Or are you trying to tell us that we shouldn't be offended when people engage in speech that has the effect of inciting hatred toward definable, usually already oppressed, groups of people? Well, I am perfectly comfortable being offended at this type of speech, and don't mind letting people know it.
Click to expand...

Is it as offensive, in your mind, if it's a minority directing their hatred at a larger group? Say like how atheists often refer to the beliefs of the religious as fairytales and myths born out of ignorance? I think that is pretty hateful. Is that offensive to you?
 
mac said:
Is it as offensive, in your mind, if it's a minority directing their hatred at a larger group? Say like how atheists often refer to the beliefs of the religious as fairytales and myths born out of ignorance? I think that is pretty hateful. Is that offensive to you?
Click to expand...

I don't view that to be hate speech. I don't see how it would incite people to hatred of religious people. It might be offensive because in certain contexts it borders on rude. I am not sure that would be the case here, in a forum where what you've described just looks like standard frank discussion, which is what is supposed to happen here. I just don't even think that what you've quoted rises even to the level of incivility here. But, I would be shocked to see someone post it, say, on Facebook.

But, in general, no, it is not usually as offensive when the less powerful group attacks the more powerful group with hate speech. Usually, this is the oppressed lashing out at the group containing their oppressors. While it is still offensive, it is usually powerless to have an effect on the lives of that more powerful group.

Which brings us to one of the main reasons hate speech is offensive at all, perhaps the main reason: Its potential to affect, in concrete and adverse ways, the lives of the people it targets. When the oppressed lash out at their oppressors with calumny, it just doesn't have that added oomph. Thus, not as offensive, to me.
 
mac said:
Is it as offensive, in your mind, if it's a minority directing their hatred at a larger group? Say like how atheists often refer to the beliefs of the religious as fairytales and myths born out of ignorance? I think that is pretty hateful. Is that offensive to you?
Click to expand...

By the way, what is the difference between belief in fairy tales and belief in religious stories? The number of people that believe the stories in the different classifications to be true? I'm just not sure there is any other way to tell the difference ;)
 
Dezaad said:
By the way, what is the difference between belief in fairy tales and belief in religious stories? The number of people that believe the stories in the different classifications to be true? I'm just not sure there is any other way to tell the difference ;)
Click to expand...

That's how hypothetical constructs work.
 
fredmertz said:
yes or no?

I say definately not. It is a form of speech. So long as it is done with proper permits, etc. I mean, you can't just walk out on Main street with such a demonstration. That's just disruptive.

My favorite argument against flag-burning legislation is this: In the legislation, they always allow the boyscouts to burn the flag when it is torn or tattered as the proper disposal of the flag.

So boyscouts can do it. But I can't do it in my own home if I'm angry at the US (though note - I would be really angry if I saw someone doing this - I'm very patriotic). So what's the difference between the boyscouts and what I do? Answer: What we are thinking - which is our reason for doing it. So you're not making it illegal to burn a flag - you're making it illegal to think certain thoughts while burning a flag. The government... trying to control what we think. Ouch.

On the greater scale - The US Flag represents America -which represents all of our individual freedoms. How hypocritcal would it be to refuse a freedom (of speech) in order to protect the symbol of such a freedom? (and likewise, how hypocritical would it be to burn such a symbol?) But let the individual choose to be hypocritical - that's their freedom to do so - don't put it in legislation for goodness sake!

It seems obvious to me and so I don't understand what the arguments are for such legislation - I figure this would be the best place to get opposing views :)
Click to expand...

Yes, it's arson and should be illegal. Arson is not speech.
 
Jerry said:
Yes, it's arson and should be illegal. Arson is not speech.
Click to expand...

Everyone at the campground was commiting arson last weekend.
 
Dezaad said:
By the way, what is the difference between belief in fairy tales and belief in religious stories? The number of people that believe the stories in the different classifications to be true? I'm just not sure there is any other way to tell the difference ;)
Click to expand...
Is it hate speech or free speech to burn a bible? The Koran?
 
Dezaad said:
By the way, what is the difference between belief in fairy tales and belief in religious stories? The number of people that believe the stories in the different classifications to be true? I'm just not sure there is any other way to tell the difference ;)
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what the difference is, I was questioning your assertion that hate speech is committed by a majority and directed at an oppressed minority.
 
Barbbtx said:
Is it hate speech or free speech to burn a bible? The Koran?
Click to expand...
I am unsure. Do you think that burning a religion's scripture text has the effect of inciting hatred of the respective religion's followers?

Furthermore, just because I consider something to be hate speech and am offended by it doesn't mean that I believe that speech should be censored by law. So, hate speech and free speech can be the same thing. That is, expressions which are hate speech can also be manifestations of free speech. The reason I point this out is because your question "Is it hate speech or free speech...?" would seem to imply that they are mutually exclusive, which they are not. An expression can be both. In fact, almost all hate speech is also free speech.
 
mac said:
It doesn't matter what the difference is, I was questioning your assertion that hate speech is committed by a majority and directed at an oppressed minority.
Click to expand...
And I answered your query with this:

Dezaad said:
I don't view that to be hate speech. I don't see how it would incite people to hatred of religious people. It might be offensive because in certain contexts it borders on rude. I am not sure that would be the case here, in a forum where what you've described just looks like standard frank discussion, which is what is supposed to happen here. I just don't even think that what you've quoted rises even to the level of incivility here. But, I would be shocked to see someone post it, say, on Facebook.

But, in general, no, it is not usually as offensive when the less powerful group attacks the more powerful group with hate speech. Usually, this is the oppressed lashing out at the group containing their oppressors. While it is still offensive, it is usually powerless to have an effect on the lives of that more powerful group.

Which brings us to one of the main reasons hate speech is offensive at all, perhaps the main reason: Its potential to affect, in concrete and adverse ways, the lives of the people it targets. When the oppressed lash out at their oppressors with calumny, it just doesn't have that added oomph. Thus, not as offensive, to me.
Click to expand...

Which is as much as to say, 'yes, it is all hate speech', but to qualify by adding 'but some is more offensive than others because it is not solely the speech alone that is offensive, but rather its potential to foment real harm'.
 
Dezaad said:
And I answered your query with this:



Which is as much as to say, 'yes, it is all hate speech', but to qualify by adding 'but some is more offensive than others because it is not solely the speech alone that is offensive, but rather its potential to foment real harm'.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I disagree that some hate speech is more offensive than others simply due to who is speaking hate. Hate is hate.
 
mac said:
Thanks. I disagree that some hate speech is more offensive than others simply due to who is speaking hate. Hate is hate.
Click to expand...
emphasis mine


That's fine. You seem to be basing the amount you are offended on what is going on inside the head of the person doing the speaking (i.e. whether they are hating). I don't. I base my level of offense on what is likely to happen as a result of the speaking, and I couldn't really care less what is going on inside the head of the speaker. In my view, hate speech doesn't even need to be spoken by someone who is actually hating, for it to be hate speech.

Your view allows you to be significantly offended at any speech where you can speculate that the person speaking is being hateful. Mine allows me to be offended where I can speculate that the effect will be harmful.

Thus, I end up offended on behalf of people who are oppressed. You should end up defending the relatively powerful from the relatively powerless. I am sure your defense of them is sorely needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom