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: 46
82
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Looks like America has been grappling with this issue legally for a long time. This has a history and people have been arrested in the past for flag burning. So ease up on the dictator stuff it's nothing new.


Flag desecration The divisive issue of flag desecration as a form of protest first came before the Supreme Court in Street v. New York (1969).[109] In response to hearing an erroneous report of the murder of civil rights activist James Meredith, Sidney Street burned a 48-star U.S. flag. Street was arrested and charged with a New York state law making it a crime "publicly [to] mutilate, deface, defile, or defy, trample upon, or cast contempt upon either by words or act [any flag of the United States]."[110] In a 5–4 decision, the Court, relying on Stromberg v. California (1931),[111] found that because the provision of the New York law criminalizing "words" against the flag was unconstitutional, and the trial did not sufficiently demonstrate that he was convicted solely under the provisions not yet deemed unconstitutional, the conviction was unconstitutional. The Court, however, "resist[ed] the pulls to decide the constitutional issues involved in this case on a broader basis" and left the constitutionality of flag-burning unaddressed.[112][113] The ambiguity with regard to flag-burning statutes was eliminated in Texas v. Johnson (1989).[114] In that case, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag at a demonstration during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas. Charged with violating a Texas law prohibiting the vandalizing of venerated objects, Johnson was convicted, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000. The Supreme Court reversed his conviction in a 5–4 vote. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote in the decision that "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable."[115] Congress then passed a federal law barring flag burning, but the Supreme Court struck it down as well in United States v. Eichman (1990).[116][117] A Flag Desecration Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been proposed repeatedly in Congress since 1989, and in 2006 failed to pass the Senate by a single vote.[118]


en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5




Yeah...this is awkard...a drunk a-hole being billigerant verses gangland violence.

Gonna go with the lets hang with the jackass



Cool video bro. what else you got?

Yes, 1st amendment protects you from words...
that must really urk lots of "pro"gressives.

both sides and their authoritarians are raw sewage...the division of left and right is held only now by the authoritarians though. the libertarian end of the left and right will unite to destroy whats left.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlphaIron

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.


Read the link...Chris Cuomo didn't argue that Hate Speech was excluded from the first amendment. He said the opposite and got debunked.

I'll chase your case law when you catch up. The Politifact article cites SCOTUS and Legal Scholars and the interpretation is consistent and well supported.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

I am not going to trade vids with you...

You are well aware of the litany of vulgar trump supporter vids beating people and shouting vile things..

Wrong thread and wrong time.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlphaIron

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.


So...You are citing the singular dissenting opinion in an 8-1 ruling declaring the Westboro protests protected?

That to me is a very strong rebuke of your argument by the SCOTUS, not support of it.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

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.

Sure bud. wave your flag high..just make sure to file the proper paperwork should you ever hook up with someone
Yes Means Yes law

soo much for nuanced dating..progressives want a cop and a politician to go on dates with them. yay liberty.

no means no...a smile and a nudge, a kiss and a wink, all the subtleness that has been part of humanity since its dawning

yes means yes...a sterile agreement, preferrably with witnesses, writing, or a handy app, that also requires you to have a blood alcohol content under a certain level and...etc

liberty is the key in liberal..its not a parody or meant to be ironic...and now you know why actual liberals are fighting these progressive cancerous monkeys foot and fist to get them the hell out of our ideology..they are corruptors who are changing laws to become less...liberal.
edit on 30-11-2016 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: SaturnFX

I am not going to trade vids with you...

You are well aware of the litany of vulgar trump supporter vids beating people and shouting vile things..

Wrong thread and wrong time.


Beating people?

I will give you 1 video and will leave it at that..a fun video by a cute girl who pretty much nails it.

Ahh reality, you slippery little thing you.

But hey, she is liberal..so you should be able to tolerate most of her video (until she starts showing facts anyhow)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

If you are not a native American and you find an eagle feather on the ground and keep it, you could receive a $5000 fine and up to a year in prison. Even though the only thing you did was pick up a feather you found on the ground. The Eagle is a symbol of our nation and is to be respected.

Why is our flag any different? If you burn the symbol of our nation you are declaring that you no longer respect or honor the flag and what it stands for - the American way of life. You SHOULD lose your citizenship for burning it.

If this was the ONLY way someone could express their feelings, then maybe....m a y b e... but it isn't. Period. Full stop.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Since this thread is 46 pages long, I'm not really sure if this has been said already. So, I'll just throw this out there, just in case. Justice Scalia said basically the same thing as Trump years ago. And while he said that was his personal opinion, he also voted that it was free speech. IMO Trump is stating his personal views on the subject. He's not saying that the decision should be overturned. I actually think he's baiting people to watch the heads explode. If he tries to have that decision overturned, I will gladly join in the demands for my rights to free speech. But as of this moment, I think he's just stating his opinion.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Golden Eagle feathers are also illegal.

Are they too symbols of our country?

You might want to look into why bald eagle feathers are actually illegal before you look stupid......



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

Not to go off topic, but in my single years you had to have rules to survive and mine were simply..

Yes means yes.
No means no. (even when a girl might be playing...girls who play with the word no are crazy..run)
Crazy means no.

You gotta have rules..Other than that my safe word was "keep going".



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

Again...sorry...not trading vids and not watching whatever that girl has to say...She looks like she is going to say or do stuff I don't want to waste brain space on.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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.

Yes. According to the 1st Amendment it is the only way to assault free speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It's interesting how conservatives are all about the exact words in these Amendments for things like the 2nd and the phrase "shall not be infringed" but apparently "Congress shall make no law" means nothing to you guys.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
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...


Just a quick point: burning a flag is way more over the top than voicing an opinion on it.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi




Since this thread is 46 pages long, I'm not really sure if this has been said already. So, I'll just throw this out there, just in case. Justice Scalia said basically the same thing as Trump years ago. And while he said that was his personal opinion, he also voted that it was free speech. IMO Trump is stating his personal views on the subject. He's not saying that the decision should be overturned. I actually think he's baiting people to watch the heads explode. If he tries to have that decision overturned, I will gladly join in the demands for my rights to free speech. But as of this moment, I think he's just stating his opinion.


Very true. Never take anything off the table is a principle of his. Hence his talk about torture, nukes, and other threats, which not only make heads explode, but make the enemies think twice.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: SaturnFX

Not to go off topic, but in my single years you had to have rules to survive and mine were simply..

Yes means yes.
No means no. (even when a girl might be playing...girls who play with the word no are crazy..run)
Crazy means no.

You gotta have rules..Other than that my safe word was "keep going".





Yes is almost always implied. I honestly dont think I ever was told "yes" before..and my life has been..active.

No means no (unless safewords were established beforehand and its roleplay
)
And crazy means...case by case basis.

The law I was pointing out means that if you dont get the specific yes, then its rape
if she (or technically you) are drunk, you cant legally consent, therefore its rape
rape rape rape..etc.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Yes. According to the 1st Amendment it is the only way to assault free speech.


Where does it say that making laws is the only way to assault free speech? nowhere.


It's interesting how conservatives are all about the exact words in these Amendments for things like the 2nd and the phrase "shall not be infringed" but apparently "Congress shall make no law" means nothing to you guys.


You're confusing the first amendment with free speech. Amateur mistake. Hence why your statement "Liberals do not assault free speech", then go on to talk about the first amendment, is utter piffle.
edit on 30-11-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
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.


Hold on to that feeling. You deserve it. Time reconciles all things, try not to confuse winning with losing.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: SaturnFX

Again...sorry...not trading vids and not watching whatever that girl has to say...She looks like she is going to say or do stuff I don't want to waste brain space on.


o...kay
then why the F%%& did I watch your video?

heres an idea..if you only want to dictate instead of discuss, stop talking to people on a discussion board...start a blog



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: AlbanArthur

I am fully aware of the reason they are protected. They are also considered a national treasure. There are many birds that fit the category of ecological presence as the Eagle that are not protected or protected to the same degree. Hawks and falcons fit the same purpose but are not symbols of our nation.

There is the law, and there is the spirit of the law.



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join