Why the 2016 Election is important : America's flag burns on US soil.

originally posted by: UKTruth
I saw the video below and could not believe my eyes.

I usually see this on the news in the streets of Iran during major conflicts but I was absolutely astounded watching this video on American soil.
It's not just the fact that was so shocking but it was the clear belief in this group of people that what they were doing was right.

I wonder will America die, or will it reject this direction.

Should these people be immediately deported or jailed or is this acceptable under free speech? It feels like there are many pushing the limits of the first amendment.

It is allowed by the constitution to burn the American flag.

Even Scalia voted that it was legal and allowed.
time.com...

Almost immediately after the ruling was made, President Bush proposed a solution: a constitutional amendment that would exempt flag-desecration as protected speech. But the legislative branch struck first and passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which made it criminal to desecrate the flag, regardless of motive. Protesters responded quickly by burning flags, in an attempt to get the issue back to the Supreme Court. Almost exactly a year after Texas v. Johnson, their wish came true. In United States v. Eichman, which was decided exactly 25 years ago, on June 11, 1990, the Supreme Court once again ruled that burning the flag was an example of constitutionally protected free speech.

a reply to: seeker1963

Does it kind of irk me a bit? Yea. However, ignoring it or laughing at those who do it, is how to end the behavior.

Took the words right outa my mouth. What I see when I view one of these events is............click bait. Anything to get a high rating on Youtube.

I truly believe that it is their right to do so. However, it is so pathetic. Why live in a nation where you want to burn the flag that so many died defending? It is disrespectful but there is nothing you can do.

I just do not get it. The lady with the loud speaker is what is so wrong with so many beliefs and protests. Does not listen to anyone or talk to anyone just screams out what she wants. Other people are voicing their opinion and she calls them mother #ers. Others try to debate and peacefully say how they feel. The guy who put out the flag because that is his belief was called a nazi.....really? This lady is more prejudiced and racist than the people she is trying to slam. Has no idea about anything of the guy and calls him a Nazi mother#er for having a different belief.

What country does she want us to be like? Almost all others she would be jailed or killed for this? It a ying yang kind of thing here in America. Yes you have capitalism and all that, but you get some freedoms and be able to do things like this on the other hand.

I'm guessing that the OP and a lot of other people don't quite understand the action of burning the flag in protest.

The belief that there is something fundamentally wrong with what the flag is representing, namely, all the bad in America. The flag was burned in the 1960's at anti-Vietnam war protests. The flag was burned again in the 1990's at anti-Gulf War protests. The flag burning is meant to represent the destruction of a system that these people oppose.

Are you all honestly going to sit there and tell me that everything in America is OK right now? That every action the American government takes is just and right? Are you going to tell me that we're the best and most free nation on Earth?

Protesting and protests in general are about awareness and being heard when you believe that no one is listening. Burning the flag is eliciting a response from you, just as it was intended to do.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: crazyewok

I think that was the point he was trying to make.

Here, they have that freedom to hate the country that provides that freedom because they left a country that didn't offer them that freedom.

Indeed.
It always amazes me when some people base their values on laws - that change by the way, as they have in America on this very issue.

Actually no it hasn't. Flag burning has been free speech for many years now and that hasn't changed.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: crazyewok

I think that was the point he was trying to make.

Here, they have that freedom to hate the country that provides that freedom because they left a country that didn't offer them that freedom.

Indeed.
It always amazes me when some people base their values on laws - that change by the way, as they have in America on this very issue.

Actually no it hasn't. Flag burning has been free speech for many years now and that hasn't changed.

Excuse me? Are you saying that because it hasn't changed in many years that it hasn't changed? You'll need to explain that one a bit better - it defies logic.
The law has either changed or it hasn't. Which is it?

I have a solution.

Send some Marines over there, combat vets, and let them "talk" it out.

originally posted by: onequestion
I have a solution.

Send some Marines over there, combat vets, and let them "talk" it out.

Good suggestion.

For those interested, here is a timeline summary of the issue.

It's only since 1989 that flag burning has been protected under the 1st Amendment.

Challenges to reverse the 1989 changes and make it illegal to burn the American flag have been made several times, consistently over a decade from 1995 to 2005, passing in the House each year, but failing in the Senate (by as little as 4 votes).

Flag Desecration

I wonder if we see a lot of the type of flag burning protest by crazy liberals as we lead up to the November elections, will changes find their way through the Senate...

.a reply to: seeker1963 I have been asking that for a while, I couldnt imagine moving to another country and protesting it . Although im sure some snowflakes would say that its great and welcome more to move here where everything should be free and no one works but the ambitious.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: ketsuko

Didn’t say I agree with what they say or do.

I don’t.

But what would you do?

Create new laws like the UK did? That’s what they WANT you to do. Cause they will turn those laws back on you.

You cant protect freedom by taking freedom away.


If they are not US citizens then yeah deport them.
If they are US citizens then I don’t see what you can do except ignore them?

The UK laws relating to hate speech are sensible. I certainly think a Muslim cleric telling people they must kill others is rightly illegal, for example.
The problems come when the classification of hate speech encompasses too many things. The McAlpine case was a classic example of over reach, but ultimately the Crown saw sense.

In the US the first amendment also comes with it's limitations. For example, you cant call for violence at a protest or you will be arrested.

The underlying point here is when is free speech taken too far.

If they are threating violence and trying to incite a actual serious crime you would have a point.

Burning a stupid rag on a stick? No.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: ketsuko

Didn’t say I agree with what they say or do.

I don’t.

But what would you do?

Create new laws like the UK did? That’s what they WANT you to do. Cause they will turn those laws back on you.

You cant protect freedom by taking freedom away.


If they are not US citizens then yeah deport them.
If they are US citizens then I don’t see what you can do except ignore them?

The UK laws relating to hate speech are sensible. I certainly think a Muslim cleric telling people they must kill others is rightly illegal, for example.
The problems come when the classification of hate speech encompasses too many things. The McAlpine case was a classic example of over reach, but ultimately the Crown saw sense.

In the US the first amendment also comes with it's limitations. For example, you cant call for violence at a protest or you will be arrested.

The underlying point here is when is free speech taken too far.

If they are threating violence and trying to incite a actual serious crime you would have a point.

Burning a stupid rag on a stick? No.

Desecrating the flag can and does incite violence and conflict. That's a fact.

The below will be a common scene across America if this does not get sorted out.

a reply to: UKTruth

The key is CAN.

If you go down the route of bannings things because of CANS then you open a whole can of worms.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: UKTruth

The key is CAN.

If you go down the route of bannings things because of CANS then you open a whole can of worms.

I said DOES...

a reply to: UKTruth

The only thing I know for sure is that upright dogs and talking apes on both sides of every stupid issue imaginable are easily triggered by words and symbols.

Just like every other domesticated animal on the planet.

It might be funny if it weren't so sad.

Most people need to find a hobby or interest that actually elevates their humanity a bit. Running around, and being triggered by a flag is the same exact behavior as running around triggered by anything else.

The protests here are simple: not an American citizen? Deport. American citizen who commits violence during a so called "peaceful" protest? Trial and then jail or prison.

American citizen waving / burning any particular symbol: ignore.

Getting triggered is for Pavlov's dogs, not people. It doesn't matter which side of an imaginary argument you think you are on.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: UKTruth

The only thing I know for sure is that upright dogs and talking apes on both sides of every stupid issue imaginable are easily triggered by words and symbols.

Just like every other domesticated animal on the planet.

It might be funny if it weren't so sad.

Most people need to find a hobby or interest that actually elevates their humanity a bit. Running around, and being triggered by a flag is the same exact behavior as running around triggered by anything else.

The protests here are simple: not an American citizen? Deport. American citizen who commits violence during a so called "peaceful" protest? Trial and then jail or prison.

American citizen waving / burning any particular symbol: ignore.

Getting triggered is for Pavlov's dogs, not people. It doesn't matter which side of an imaginary argument you think you are on.

Oh if only symbolism was as inconsequential as you believe. That would be nice. Doesn't sound like you really know much about the issue.
One could argue that those that don't see the impact of this particular symbolism are the ones that are domesticated. Numb to what is going on.

Given the millions of veterans in the country, do you think it's ok to just ignore people like this...call him an animal of you like (though I bet you wouldn't to his face) but you can't ignore the passion and the potential danger if this continues to levels that provoke some kind of organised reaction.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: UKTruth

The key is CAN.

If you go down the route of bannings things because of CANS then you open a whole can of worms.

I said DOES...

Don't be stupid.

No one is forced to violence over it. No one is under direct threat.

To ban a form of protest you don't like makes you a authoritarian and no better than the flag burners.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: UKTruth

The key is CAN.

If you go down the route of bannings things because of CANS then you open a whole can of worms.

I said DOES...

Don't be stupid.

No one is forced to violence over it. No one is under direct threat.

To ban a form of protest you don't like makes you a authoritarian and no better than the flag burners.

Inciting and forcing are two different things. Don't be stupid.
The laws governing protests clearly state that you can not incite violence and you don't need to be putting someone under direct threat to be deemed to be inciting violence.

WHERE PROTECTIONS END

Is all speech protected?
The First Amendment protects your right to express your opinion, even if it's unpopular. You may criticize the President, the Congress, or the chief of police without fear of retaliation. But this right doesn't extend to libel, slander, obscenity, "true threats," or speech that incites imminent violence or law-breaking. If you grab a megaphone during a riot and yell "shoot the cop" or "loot the shop," you may reasonably expect trouble.

Can I talk about government overthrow or taking over the streets?
Yes, for the most part. In the 1940s and '50s, suspected subversives or Communists were often charged with 'incitement to illegal activity' and convicted. Subsequent courts have interpreted the government's ability to prohibit speech as incitement more narrowly. The government can't stop you from talking generally about ideas or future events. But it may ban speech that’s "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.'

What if others react violently to what I say? You can't be held responsible for the way that counter-demonstrators or your own supporters react, as long as your words don't directly incite violence or law-breaking. It's the responsibility of the police to control the crowd.

The 1st amendment does not give unlimited rights to free speech.

Right now flag burning is allowed - as of 1989 - but there remain efforts to have the 1989 ruling overturned through law.

All healthy societies are authoritarian.

originally posted by: UKTruth

All healthy societies are authoritarian.

The core of the right-wing belief structure, ladies and gentlemen.

Thanks UK for being so blatantly honest.