It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: onequestion
I have a solution.
Send some Marines over there, combat vets, and let them "talk" it out.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.