Flag burning

[© tweed]

[© tweed]

It makes me happy that Hillary voted no.  Menendez is a major disappointment, however.

[© tweed]

Using that mindset, I should be able to park my car in the middle of the street, torch it, and claim that I am protesting against the government for not cutting us off of foreign oil.

That is a completely separate issue.  Burning a car in the middle of the road isn't a free speech issue, it's a public safety issue.  Obviously a torched car in the middle of a road has the potential to harm others.  Now, if you want to ban flag burning based upon this logic, then you should feel that burning any piece of cloth should be illegal, as it poses the same safety to hazard to anybody as would burning a flag.

[© tweed]

Using that mindset, I should be able to park my car in the middle of the street, torch it, and claim that I am protesting against the government for not cutting us off of foreign oil.

That is a completely separate issue.  Burning a car in the middle of the road isn't a free speech issue, it's a public safety issue.  Obviously a torched car in the middle of a road has the potential to harm others.  Now, if you want to ban flag burning based upon this logic, then you should feel that burning any piece of cloth should be illegal, as it poses the same safety to hazard to anybody as would burning a flag.

Which is why I phrased the example that way.  The argument doesn't hold up.  I can claim safety reasons that the dyes used in making a cotton flag could give off harmful gases, more so if it is a polyester flag.  In fact, I believe most cities and states have laws against carrying items such as torches or any other open flame (outside of matches/lighters) in public.  So again, we have more double standards regarding flag burning compared to other acts of destruction via flame in public.

So would you support a hypothetical amendment to prohibit the desecration of the Soviet flag?  The Nazi flag?  That's the only way your argument is logically consistent, and even if it is, it isn't a speech issue but rather a safety issue.

[© tweed]

So would you support a hypothetical amendment to prohibit the desecration of the Soviet flag?  The Nazi flag?  That's the only way your argument is logically consistent, and even if it is, it isn't a speech issue but rather a safety issue.

As I said before (even in this thread), I think all soveriegn nation flags should be protected.  The soviet union and nazi germany no longer exist, so no, their flags would not be protected (though there is no reason why anyone in the US should be burning their flags anyway).

But they still would release harmful chemicals into the air, which was part of your justification for prohibiting the burning of the US flag.

[© tweed]

But they still would release harmful chemicals into the air, which was part of your justification for prohibiting the burning of the US flag.

No, that was not part of my justification.  I was using it as an argument based off of your example.

I don't exactly understand why you brought it up, but not a big deal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Flag burning clearly is symbolic speech.  If the first amendment wasn't being altered, then your would have to feel all instances of symbolic speech are not constitutionally protected.  (Republicans in congress clearly feel there is a first amendment issue here; if they didn't, they would have passed this as law rather than have it fail as an amendment.)

[© tweed]

Flag burning clearly is symbolic speech. 

So is cross burning.

Your point?