It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON
You would be well to understand the context. Each element has meaning.
I am not a "ninja", nor do I know any "dragon"(s).
originally posted by: SuperStudChuck
a reply to: Tardacus
So then, does the FedEx driver have the right to stop a crime from being committed?
I hate flag-burning, but as it's legal (as per my understanding), I think it's better to rise above it and let the burners be seen for who they are. But since he technically stopped a crime in progress, that's a good thing, no?
originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON
if you saw someone trying to light a child on fire I hope you would intervene and keep the child safe until the police arrived.
originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON
a reply to: riiver
Got in his face? You mean from behind to grab his own flag? Or like all the Extinguisher smoke sprayed at his face in 1:04? That's probably what you meant by in his face. Maybe you mean the person that tore the non-violent FedEx man away from his attempt at a headlock on the first mans face.
I guess the mans provoked assault is justified, but the 'idiot protesters' are clearly violent people trying to reclaim their own property.
Ps. His Donkey Kong slam at 1:10 is super elegant. Like a rare peaceful majestic elephant.
I would actually stand up for your right to call my wife fat. But i'd kick your ass if you said it.
Was it theft? Technically, yes. Since they were going to burn it, there is no real monetary loss, so im not sure it'd be worth anyones time, especially the state, prosecuting it as theft.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Annee
If someone screams "fire" in a theater, then we find a limit to free speech that is both reasonable and actionable.
Another limit is "Fighting Words", as per Chaplinski v. New Hampshire
(1) That, so construed, it is sufficiently definite and specific to comply with requirements of due process of law. P. 573.
(2) That, as applied to a person who, on a public street, addressed another as a "damned Fascist" and a "damned racketeer," it does not substantially or unreasonably impinge upon freedom of speech. P. 574.
(3) The refusal of the state court to admit evidence offered by the defendant tending to prove provocation and evidence bearing on the truth or falsity of the utterances charged is open to no constitutional objection. P. 574.
2. The Court notices judicially that the appellations "damned racketeer" and "damned Fascist" are epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace. P. 574
The point being: if you are egging for a bruising, the law will not protect you. Your intention is to create negative reaction.
State by state may have variations on the above in their laws. But that is the base of national judicial precedent
originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Now that's an interesting thought. If flag-burning is "speech," legally, than can it be considered "fighting words"? Especially if the person who reacts to it is, say, a veteran? Is there any precedent on this?
For the record--NOT trying to start a fight here. I just think it's an interesting question.