• 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!

Burning your own flag is freedom of speech. Burning your neighbors is vandalism

I

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,305
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have seen at least two cons writing that taking a knife to the Baby Trump should be covered under free speech, but it is not. SCOTUS has spoken that when you burn your own flag it is covered by the 1st Amendment to the constitution as free speech. To desecrate your neighbors flag is a violation of the law. So when you take a knife to baby Trump you have violated the law, unless you own the balloon. It would never be covered by the 1st Amendment.
 
independentusa said:
I have seen at least two cons writing that taking a knife to the Baby Trump should be covered under free speech, but it is not. SCOTUS has spoken that when you burn your own flag it is covered by the 1st Amendment to the constitution as free speech. To desecrate your neighbors flag is a violation of the law. So when you take a knife to baby Trump you have violated the law, unless you own the balloon. It would never be covered by the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

twump supporters, sycophants and fellatrixes HATE the law and the rule of law.
 
independentusa said:
I have seen at least two cons writing that taking a knife to the Baby Trump should be covered under free speech, but it is not. SCOTUS has spoken that when you burn your own flag it is covered by the 1st Amendment to the constitution as free speech. To desecrate your neighbors flag is a violation of the law. So when you take a knife to baby Trump you have violated the law, unless you own the balloon. It would never be covered by the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

The sad part is this is one of those REALLY REALLY simple concepts that they should know and understand...…...but they don't.
 
independentusa said:
I have seen at least two cons writing that taking a knife to the Baby Trump should be covered under free speech, but it is not. SCOTUS has spoken that when you burn your own flag it is covered by the 1st Amendment to the constitution as free speech. To desecrate your neighbors flag is a violation of the law. So when you take a knife to baby Trump you have violated the law, unless you own the balloon. It would never be covered by the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

Whichever "conservative" claimed the bolded above would be wrong. It is vandalism which is a crime.

One can do with their own property what they will, as long as the act does not result in, or pose a threat of harm to, someone or someone else's property.

I have seen people burn the US Flag. It disturbs me because it is an act which demonstrates a hatred and lack of respect for our nation as a whole. But as long as that flag was purchased by or been gifted to the person burning it? It remains an act of free expression.

However, anyone of whatever political persuasion who thinks free speech includes the taking and/or destruction of OTHER people's property? They better think again.
 
Last edited:
independentusa said:
I have seen at least two cons writing that taking a knife to the Baby Trump should be covered under free speech, but it is not. SCOTUS has spoken that when you burn your own flag it is covered by the 1st Amendment to the constitution as free speech. To desecrate your neighbors flag is a violation of the law. So when you take a knife to baby Trump you have violated the law, unless you own the balloon. It would never be covered by the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

Destruction of property may not be a free speech, but it's a speech all right. It sends a specific message.
 
independentusa said:
I have seen at least two cons writing that taking a knife to the Baby Trump should be covered under free speech, but it is not. SCOTUS has spoken that when you burn your own flag it is covered by the 1st Amendment to the constitution as free speech. To desecrate your neighbors flag is a violation of the law. So when you take a knife to baby Trump you have violated the law, unless you own the balloon. It would never be covered by the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

IM not sure which conservatives you are talking about, but they completely wrong.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
twump supporters, sycophants and fellatrixes HATE the law and the rule of law.
Click to expand...

leftists, sycophants and fellatrixes HATE the law and the rule of law.
 
Burning the American flag, a symbol of national pride, is an attempt to provoke reactionary responses, the more violent the better. Not dissimilar to shouting fire in a movie theater. With freedom comes responsibility. Because of an idiotic provocation, people can be injured and some could die. With this in mind is burning a flag a exercise in free speech, or an example of hate and provocation for its own sake?
 
Fletch said:
IM not sure which conservatives you are talking about, but they completely wrong.
Click to expand...

There are two OP's from cons on this board talking about this issue. I often wonder if anyone who writes such garbage has ever taken a class in the Constitution, If they haven't they should. I took one when I was in high school, it was required for graduation in Texas, and once again when I got my first degree.
 
independentusa said:
I have seen at least two cons writing that taking a knife to the Baby Trump should be covered under free speech, but it is not. SCOTUS has spoken that when you burn your own flag it is covered by the 1st Amendment to the constitution as free speech. To desecrate your neighbors flag is a violation of the law. So when you take a knife to baby Trump you have violated the law, unless you own the balloon.
Click to expand...

Understand that right-wingers are authoritarians, and ANY rights by people they don't like they see as a violation of their rights - for example, they said that two gay people getting married was an 'attack on marriage' and they were defending themselves by banning it - while ANYTHING they do is a 'right' for them - if they stabbed the people with baby trump as well as the baloon, they might well support that, also. Remember 'shoot someone on fifth avenue'.
 
Fletch said:
IM not sure which conservatives you are talking about, but they completely wrong.
Click to expand...

Many/most right-wingers don't value any 'rule of law' except where it benefits them - they're authoritarians. For example, watch the US Senate Republicans as they ignored the issues with Kavanaugh, impeachment of trump or other issues, to simply vote for 'their power' ignoring any facts, principles, laws.
 
Fletch said:
If thats the wall in front of your house and you painted those signs, then its speech. If those are the wall of my house and you painted them there, thats vandalism. Your rights end where mine begin.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about rights. I am not talking about free speech. I am talking about SPEECH itself. Some vandalism is a form of speech or a message. In this case, it is a form of hate speech, telling the Jews something at the synagogue.
 
AProudLefty said:
Knowing him and his posting history, he means what he says.
Click to expand...

If you're suggesting that he's suggesting there's no message in painting a swastika, I don't think that's correct. Fletch appears to be on the 'right side' on this, against the right-wingers stabbing the balloon, isn't he? On the other hand, I'm rather sympathetic to some vandalism as civil disobedience if the cause justifies it, e.g., if someone painted something on the Koch company sign to say something against them.
 
independentusa said:
I have seen at least two cons writing that taking a knife to the Baby Trump should be covered under free speech, but it is not. SCOTUS has spoken that when you burn your own flag it is covered by the 1st Amendment to the constitution as free speech. To desecrate your neighbors flag is a violation of the law. So when you take a knife to baby Trump you have violated the law, unless you own the balloon. It would never be covered by the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

The fact that this even needs to be pointed it out is evidence for how fall some conservatives have fallen intellectually. This is shameful.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Burning the American flag, a symbol of national pride, is an attempt to provoke reactionary responses, the more violent the better. Not dissimilar to shouting fire in a movie theater. With freedom comes responsibility. Because of an idiotic provocation, people can be injured and some could die. With this in mind is burning a flag a exercise in free speech, or an example of hate and provocation for its own sake?
Click to expand...

So people are so thin skinned that they would react to burning fabric or plastic? Then those people have poor self control. That's not on the protestor.
 
OldFatGuy said:
leftists, sycophants and fellatrixes HATE the law and the rule of law.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about. Those people who knifed the balloon BROKE THE LAW, not those who have ever burned the flag. You can not get around that. Watch and listen to something other than Fox News and Rush Limgaugh. And as far as burning the flag, there is an old saying, I hate what you did but I will give my life to insure you can do it. I find it funny as back when I went to college and people were burning flags, most cons were totally aghast at the fact that people were wearing clothing that were made up to look like our flag. They thought it was terrible and now it is considered a sign of respect.
 
Fletch said:
If thats the wall in front of your house and you painted those signs, then its speech. If those are the wall of my house and you painted them there, thats vandalism. Your rights end where mine begin.
Click to expand...

I do not often agree with you but you are right. In my town I can put up whatever political sign I want, but if I steal one from my neighbor's lawn I am in trouble, deep trouble.
 
AProudLefty said:
I am not talking about rights. I am not talking about free speech. I am talking about SPEECH itself. Some vandalism is a form of speech or a message. In this case, it is a form of hate speech, telling the Jews something at the synagogue.
Click to expand...

By that standard, every action can send a message. Even murder. If I slit the throats of your relatives, ive sent you a message every bit as clear as painting swastikas on your wall. The point here is that your right to free speech in this context is spraying graffiti on your own wall or slitting your own throat. Any virtue you believe your message carries vanishes when you violate the rights of others. Because I dont like the sign you carry or the words you say or the way you look does not justify my introduction of violence. Period.
 
Fletch said:
By that standard, every action can send a message. Even murder. If I slit the throats of your relatives, ive sent you a message every bit as clear as painting swastikas on your wall. The point here is that your right to free speech in this context is spraying graffiti on your own wall or slitting your own throat. Any virtue you believe your message carries vanishes when you violate the rights of others. Because I dont like the sign you carry or the words you say or the way you look does not justify my introduction of violence. Period.
Click to expand...

Right. Now you get my point. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom