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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Trump suggests jail, loss of citizenship for burning U.S. flag

page: 45
82
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It would be dishonest to suggest that the "SJW" concept, and the vile shouting down of people who disagree as being "racist", doesn't exist. No, its not legislation. It has nothing to do with actual justice because its social justice (which is just about the stupidest damn phrase I've ever heard).

Do we need a law outlawing phrases when there is an army of people in horned rim glasses to shout down and harass people instead?


Do we need a law outlawing expression when we have rednecks to shout down and harass people instead?

People forget that this # works both ways....
edit on 11/30/2016 by AlbanArthur because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/30/2016 by AlbanArthur because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Burning a flag sucks. Nobody deserves to spend a year in a cage for burning a flag. Hillary's idea was booted too... and hers wasn't just burning a flag, it specifically had to do with inciting violence or if the flag belonged to someone else-- but it was still booted.

Trump... Seriously, you guys, why would you support an authoritarian style nationalism? Have you not watched any movies or read any books that have warned about such things? Trump comes out on Twitter and tosses a draconian idea out there... and how are you not bothered by this?



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: AlbanArthur

I've fairly well addressed this now, haven't i?


I have no desire to burn anyones flag. But if a law is made outlawing it, i think ill have to start.

People forget this # doesn't work both ways. Its stupid from all sides, and it really doesn't work at all, actually.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Your point was that there doesn't need to be a law for SJWS to curtail someone's right to free speech.

My point was that there doesn't need to be a law for rednecks to curtail someone's right to free speech.

See how it works both ways now?



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Burning a flag sucks. Nobody deserves to spend a year in a cage for burning a flag. Hillary's idea was booted too... and hers wasn't just burning a flag, it specifically had to do with inciting violence or if the flag belonged to someone else-- but it was still booted.

Trump... Seriously, you guys, why would you support an authoritarian style nationalism? Have you not watched any movies or read any books that have warned about such things? Trump comes out on Twitter and tosses a draconian idea out there... and how are you not bothered by this?



Honest answers

Because despite your rhetoric on repeat it's not authoritarian. There's a legal precedent known as the fighting words doctrine. It's always held that speech for the purpose of inciting anger in another party is not constitutionally lawful. Throughout the years the line of cases defining fighting words has ebbed and flowed like every other constitutional issue. Thus not settled and most certainly not draconian.

And because majority on my side are confident we will not be marginalized by authoritian rule. Even when the pendulum drifts left we have the means and wherewithal to combat any serious transgressions. So much so I'm not even sure your side has the power to perpetuate such transgressions in the first place.

Last because we sincerely don't like your side and wish harm and strife to it.
edit on 30-11-2016 by AlphaIron because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

Why are you citing the UN definition of cyber-bullying?

Again...The US Constitution protects free speech.

I don't see anything apart from hyperbolic shouting from both sides...which is what our constitution very intentionally protects.

"Hate Speech"...is a description, not legal term in the USA. So debating who wants to call what "Hate Speech" is interesting to those who care...but it is just a an adjective, not law.

Not seeing your point?



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



Liberals have never assaulted free speech as much as conservatives love to pretend they have. There hasn't been a SINGLE law even WRITTEN, let alone voted on and passed by the government during Obama's tenure that restricted free speech. You should know that, but instead dupe to petty partisan shtick.


Writing laws isn't the only way to assault free speech. Neither is the government the sole enemy of free speech. Also, the first amendment is not free speech, but a law protecting it from government. But you should know that, especially given that free speech is a liberal principle.

I doubt you know what free speech is, its history, why we need it, yet claim to support liberal principles. Is that true?
edit on 30-11-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It would be dishonest to suggest that the "SJW" concept, and the vile shouting down of people who disagree as being "racist", doesn't exist.

No, its not legislation.


Full stop and I agree.

Again...Stupidity and vileness is bi-partisan...though ya know which side I think wins that competition.

"people in horned rim glasses to shout down and harass people"

And people like this winner "ya all Hillary B*&^%s?" on the other side.



1st Amendment protects them all.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlbanArthur


The whole reason Trump got elected was due to a mandate against social justice whining. He was a man who could say whatever he wanted with impunity. And coming right off the most recent Rebel Flag dust up, the nation was ripe for the picking.

So while technically you are correct...in reality it hasn't quite been like that. In fact, we have the most divisive president in our history based on the fact that people were sick of social justice telling them what they could and could not say. Perhaps when the pendulum swings the other way (and it will) you can point out how the behavior of the right caused the left to elect a lunatic. For now....it aint that way.
edit on 11/30/2016 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: SaturnFX

Why are you citing the UN definition of cyber-bullying?

Again...The US Constitution protects free speech.

I don't see anything apart from hyperbolic shouting from both sides...which is what our constitution very intentionally protects.

"Hate Speech"...is a description, not legal term in the USA. So debating who wants to call what "Hate Speech" is interesting to those who care...but it is just a an adjective, not law.

Not seeing your point?



Your reply is indicitive of a Law and order svu grad not an attorney or legal scholar. Hate speech is a broad term used even by the SC to contextualize limits on the first amendment free speech. Such limits include libel slander defamation and fighting words.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlphaIron

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: SaturnFX

Why are you citing the UN definition of cyber-bullying?

Again...The US Constitution protects free speech.

I don't see anything apart from hyperbolic shouting from both sides...which is what our constitution very intentionally protects.

"Hate Speech"...is a description, not legal term in the USA. So debating who wants to call what "Hate Speech" is interesting to those who care...but it is just a an adjective, not law.

Not seeing your point?



Your reply is indicitive of a Law and order svu grad not an attorney or legal scholar. Hate speech is a broad term used even by the SC to contextualize limits on the first amendment free speech. Such limits include libel slander defamation and fighting words.


Troll Insults aside..Your statement above is FALSE? WRONG? BS?..

CNN's Chris Cuomo: First Amendment doesn't cover hate speech FALSE
www.politifact.com...



Unprotected speech includes things such as threats, child pornography and "fighting words" (speech that would likely draw someone into a fight, such as personal insults). But hate speech is not included in that list.




In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that it’s constitutional for a state to have a statute that bans cross-burning -- but only if prosecutors can prove criminal intent to threaten. They cannot, for example, ban a burning cross used only to demonstrate political ideology. In another cross-burning case, the Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that it’s unconstitutional to up the penalty or charge people with a crime solely because their actions constitute hate speech.

"The fact that something is hate speech or not is irrelevant for First Amendment analysis," Weinstein said.

edit on 30-11-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
DP
edit on 30-11-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: SaturnFX

Why are you citing the UN definition of cyber-bullying?

Again...The US Constitution protects free speech.

I don't see anything apart from hyperbolic shouting from both sides...which is what our constitution very intentionally protects.

"Hate Speech"...is a description, not legal term in the USA. So debating who wants to call what "Hate Speech" is interesting to those who care...but it is just a an adjective, not law.

Not seeing your point?


You guys literally wont see anything until its too late.
So lets look to our neighbor in the north and how its now criminal to misgender someone
c16 bill call me xir!
follow the links also in what I put in the post you replied to of one (and many) places globally now putting cyber bullying bills into effect
or screw it, just check the PDF here cyber bullying state to state
Cyber bullying is a thing that started (arguably in good faith) and continues to evolve and encompass more and more aspects of society

How this has already effected things: Anita Sarkeesian was able to not make her femfreq donations public due to a little clause that allows you to not have to show if you are under a "orchistristrated campaign of harassment"..hense why she and many other regressives are pushing and expanding on cyber bullying to basically include criticism.

Her trip to the UN has unleashed globally more and more nations to expand on their censors..erm.."harassment" laws to include mass cyber bullying.

You are standing in a warzone and wont believe it will effect you until a bullet hits you specifically in the head.
Bit too late by then, dont you think? proactive verses reactive. you dont have to step up to the fight, but get out of our way if you wont.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   
His tweet is over-the-top. Flag burning is protected free speech. Loss of citizenship is something that wasn't even allowed to be used for terrorists under the Bush administration. Hopefully, Trump does not plan on taking away the citizenship of people he doesn't like. And Republicans ask why he seems fascist...



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   
It should be considered littering at a minimum and disrespectfull as well.
edit on 30-11-2016 by stabstab because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: AlbanArthur


Perhaps when the pendulum swings the other way (and it will) you can point out how the behavior of the right caused the left to elect a lunatic. For now....it aint that way.


Long bridges are built to sway left and right in the wind...If built improperly or if an unusual wind holds steady for long enough that bridge tears itself apart and collapses. I am hoping the wind dies down, cuz I do trust the founders built a good bridge.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: AlphaIron

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: SaturnFX

Why are you citing the UN definition of cyber-bullying?

Again...The US Constitution protects free speech.

I don't see anything apart from hyperbolic shouting from both sides...which is what our constitution very intentionally protects.

"Hate Speech"...is a description, not legal term in the USA. So debating who wants to call what "Hate Speech" is interesting to those who care...but it is just a an adjective, not law.

Not seeing your point?



Your reply is indicitive of a Law and order svu grad not an attorney or legal scholar. Hate speech is a broad term used even by the SC to contextualize limits on the first amendment free speech. Such limits include libel slander defamation and fighting words.


Troll Insults aside..Your statement above is FALSE? WRONG? BS?..

CNN's Chris Cuomo: First Amendment doesn't cover hate speech FALSE
www.politifact.com...



Unprotected speech includes things such as threats, child pornography and "fighting words" (speech that would likely draw someone into a fight, such as personal insults). But hate speech is not included in that list.




In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that it’s constitutional for a state to have a statute that bans cross-burning -- but only if prosecutors can prove criminal intent to threaten. They cannot, for example, ban a burning cross used only to demonstrate political ideology. In another cross-burning case, the Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that it’s unconstitutional to up the penalty or charge people with a crime solely because their actions constitute hate speech.

"The fact that something is hate speech or not is irrelevant for First Amendment analysis," Weinstein said.


Chris cuomo eh? I'll raise you Supreme Court justice Sam alito in Snyder v phelps. I'm an attorney not a troll. Class in session.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: AlphaIron

If the "fighting words doctrine" held any water Westboro Church would be defunct right now.

Remember protesting a soldier's funeral?

Totally within their rights as ruled upon by the SCOTUS.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

That video clip made me laugh and laugh and laugh. Had I been on the plane with him, (together) we would have made such a scene that the flight might have been diverted.

Winning makes you feel good. Maybe that's why all the (silent passengers) Democrat losers need a lollipop or something to suck.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: SaturnFX

Why are you citing the UN definition of cyber-bullying?

Again...The US Constitution protects free speech.

I don't see anything apart from hyperbolic shouting from both sides...which is what our constitution very intentionally protects.

"Hate Speech"...is a description, not legal term in the USA. So debating who wants to call what "Hate Speech" is interesting to those who care...but it is just a an adjective, not law.

Not seeing your point?


You guys literally wont see anything until its too late.
So lets look to our neighbor in the north and how its now criminal to misgender someone


Nothing personal, but no..I won't look to Europe or Canada or any other country and fear for our constitution and react..

We have survived all measure of challenge to our way of life and we remain the "greatest experiment the world has ever know"....nothing scares me about laws from Europe or abroad undermining our foundation...I admit I fear internal disease within government...specifically the one-sided power and ideological agenda occupying DC right now.



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join