why the outrage? Do either one of you remember what it was like to be 17?

Gee! When I mentioned his youth I was jumped on for being condescending. In fact I think I was told it was the most condescending post Sedan had ever read in Allforums. I guess it's only okay to bring up the fact that he is a kid if you are defending him and saying he should be held to a lesser standard than the adults.

Gee! When I mentioned his youth I was jumped on for being condescending. In fact I think I was told it was the most condescending post Sedan had ever read in Allforums.Nope. That post was when you informed Innocent Sweety that she was a Muslim.

I'm pretty sure she knew that already. :)

I didn't inform her she was a Muslim. I made reference to the fact that she was a Muslim.

I'm not really sure how you're distinguishing between "attitude" and "act." It's pretty simple. 'Attitude' is what you think. 'Act' is what you do.Let's go back to my example, if someone goes to a funeral procession and starts making lewd gestures at the casket, should that be criminal?That's right about where I draw the line because I think it is incitement to riot (the Fred Phelps yahoos come to mind). But incitement to riot is already against the law. You don't need a flag protection law to prosecute someone for this. Again, you prosecute the action, not the disrespectful attitude.Is making offensive gestures free and protected expression?Yes. Offensive speech is protected by the Constitution, is it not?

Interesting to read other countries' laws concerning flag desecration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration

I think it's battery as opposed to assault, primarily because you're physically attacking someone.

Leper physically Attacked Someone.?
Who...when...where?
This kinda thing has got to stop.
Maybe Allforums need,like one a dem little security guard,type
flunky schlub-a-dubba Dudes.!

Interesting....... from http://www.caslon.com.au/flagfiresnote2.htm


"In Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Palestine and Saudi Arabia desecration of the national flag is a criminal offence, typically punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment. There is less protection for the flags of other states; burning the flag of the 'Great Satan' (or effigies of the US President and figures such as the Australian Prime Minister) is a recurrent media event endorsed - if not organised - by authorities in several of those countries.

In China "insult" to the national flag is a criminal offence. Article 299 of the Criminal Code specifies that

Whoever purposely insults the national flag, national emblem of the PRC in a public place with such methods as burning, destroying, scribbling, soiling, and trampling is to be to be sentenced to not more than three years of fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention, control or deprived of political rights."

In showing disrespect to our American flag, protesters are, in effect, desecrating the very law that protects them.

I didn't inform her she was a Muslim. I made reference to the fact that she was a Muslim.My bad. Here's what you said:

You do not represent the average Arab Muslim. You live in one of the most liberal of the Arab countries as is shown by the fact that you attend college. In most of the Arab world girls do not and instead stay home. Just look at the pictures of street scenes. The people in the pictures are always men and boys, never women or girls.

At least part of the Muslim mindset is caused by their interpretation of the Quran. As they see it God made man and woman unequal. Man is a reflection of God but woman is merely a reflection of man and must be kept subservient. While you live in a less restrictive Arab nation there is no Arab or Muslim country in which women are the equal of men.

I'm pretty sure she knows where she lives and that she isn't representative of the average Muslim. I might be wrong but she is also most likely aware that at least part of the Muslim mindset is caused by their interpretation of the Quran. Like I said in my original post I don't know if you intended this to be condescending or not (I think condescension is as natural to you as breathing), but it came across to me as being extremely so.

Interesting....... from http://www.caslon.com.au/flagfiresnote2.htm


"In Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Palestine and Saudi Arabia desecration of the national flag is a criminal offence, typically punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment. There is less protection for the flags of other states; burning the flag of the 'Great Satan' (or effigies of the US President and figures such as the Australian Prime Minister) is a recurrent media event endorsed - if not organised - by authorities in several of those countries.

In China "insult" to the national flag is a criminal offence. Article 299 of the Criminal Code specifies that

Whoever purposely insults the national flag, national emblem of the PRC in a public place with such methods as burning, destroying, scribbling, soiling, and trampling is to be to be sentenced to not more than three years of fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention, control or deprived of political rights."Yes, we should strive to emulate those shining examples of freedom. :eek: In showing disrespect to our American flag, protesters are, in effect, desecrating the very law that protects them.I'm not following your logic here. Could you explain, please?

Yes, we should strive to emulate those shining examples of freedom.
LOL!

Yes, we should strive to emulate those shining examples of freedom. :eek: I'm not following your logic here. Could you explain, please?

1. I think our flag laws as they stand now, are, by and large, fair.
To my knowledge, no one has been imprisoned and/or forfeited their political rights for desecrating our flag,and this has been the case for some time.

2. Sure. There's ways to show disapproval of our government, its laws, (which do protect their actions of disrespect) and its policies that are universally accepted by the civilized.

As it stands, the flag burners/desecrators get about as much sympathy towards their cause as the Rosenbergs.

edit---we are agreed that the flag represents America. By America, we mean its laws, its history, its background, its foundation, its example to other nations.

We mean, especially, the Bill of Rights.
Which protect the burners/desecraters. So when they burn/disrespect the flag, they are, yes, showing disrespect to the very law that protects them.

1. I think our flag laws as they stand now, are, by and large, fair.
To my knowledge, no one has been imprisoned and/or forgeited their political rights for desecrating our flag,and this has been the case for some time.

2. Sure. There's ways to show disapproval of our government, its laws, (which do protect their actions of disrespect) and its policies that are universally accepted by the civilized.

As it stands, the flag burners/desecrators get about as much sympathy towards their cause as the Rosenbergs.

edit---we are agrred that the flag represents America. By America, we mean its laws, its history, its background, its foundation, its example to other nations.

We mean, especially, the Bill of Rights.
Which protect the burners/desecraters. So when they burn/disreprest the flag, they are, yes, showing disrespect to the very law that protects them.

You don't make a lick of sense.
Like most,round hears.
You use the bill of rights,as a shield,to both protect yerself in the
event you want to be Revolutionary and Mock or disrespect the Country,
and also to preserve that right to do so.
The Founders dint draft those great idea'rs and Rights,to be manipulated
to circumvent what they meant or stood for.
You can't say, as some have tried,I might Disagree with yer Right
to Mock what the Country stands for,But I'll defend to
the hilt yer Right to do so.How can someone defend what they disagree with.
Just for the sake of appearance.?

When have I ever mocked this country, foolsworth, in any way, shape or form?
I say to you, I have never done that.
In doing so, I would mock my own kin who helped found this place.
As for revolutionary ideas, the War was fought over taxes, not for so-called "suppressed" rights under the English. The British were quite fair to the colonists. Kindly read a history book now and then and enlighten yourself.

My bad. Here's what you said:

You do not represent the average Arab Muslim. You live in one of the most liberal of the Arab countries as is shown by the fact that you attend college. In most of the Arab world girls do not and instead stay home. Just look at the pictures of street scenes. The people in the pictures are always men and boys, never women or girls.

At least part of the Muslim mindset is caused by their interpretation of the Quran. As they see it God made man and woman unequal. Man is a reflection of God but woman is merely a reflection of man and must be kept subservient. While you live in a less restrictive Arab nation there is no Arab or Muslim country in which women are the equal of men.

I'm pretty sure she knows where she lives and that she isn't representative of the average Muslim. I might be wrong but she is also most likely aware that at least part of the Muslim mindset is caused by their interpretation of the Quran. Like I said in my original post I don't know if you intended this to be condescending or not (I think condescension is as natural to you as breathing), but it came across to me as being extremely so.

We were discussing whether Muslims and citizens of the West are the same or different. Innocent Sweetie was posting that she thinks they are the same. I was positing that they are not the same and that they have different attitudes fostered in the main by their upbringing. Mentioning the fact that Innocent Sweetie lived in the UAE was germane to the discussion, as was the fact that she is not representative of the average Muslim. The same can be said for my stating that interpretation of the Quran is one of the reasons for the Muslim mindset.

There was nothing condescending about the post. Every point I made was directly addressed to what was being discussed. The fact that it came across as condescending to you shows that you simply were not capable of fully following the discussion. Now that was condescending and it was meant to be. So is this, Sedan. You are an idiot.

It's pretty simple. 'Attitude' is what you think. 'Act' is what you do.

Ok, I don't think anyone is trying to limit what people think, so we can end the discussion about attitude. The flag guy was "acting" in an offensive manner.

That's right about where I draw the line because I think it is incitement to riot (the Fred Phelps yahoos come to mind). But incitement to riot is already against the law. You don't need a flag protection law to prosecute someone for this. Again, you prosecute the action, not the disrespectful attitude.Yes. Offensive speech is protected by the Constitution, is it not?

No, there are several exceptions to the First Amendment. One of them is the "fighting words" exception. Basically, the government is allowed to restrict speech that is so offensive that it's likely to cause a fight.

People can't walk around and start screaming obscenities at people....I think every state has a law against that sort of behavior. Here in Texas, it's one of the forms of "disorderly conduct."

Now, back to the flag guy. He was in a shopping plaza in front of a group of training paramedics. He was dragging a dirty flag behind his bicycle, saying "vulgar" things about America, and someone tried to grab the flag. After an officer had detained him, he rubbed the flag on his crotch, sat on the flag, and put the flag down his pants.

It would be one thing if he was making a constructive political protest, it's another thing if he's just trying to offend people. It sounds to me like this guy falls into the latter category. He had people calling 911 and it sounds like he actually did create some sort of commotion.

Let a jury decide. If 12 Americans can be convinced that he was exceeding his freedom of speech rights, then he probably was.

Ok, I don't think anyone is trying to limit what people think, so we can end the discussion about attitude. The flag guy was "acting" in an offensive manner.

The question is, was it just "offensive"?


No, there are several exceptions to the First Amendment. One of them is the "fighting words" exception. Basically, the government is allowed to restrict speech that is so offensive that it's likely to cause a fight.

People can't walk around and start screaming obscenities at people....I think every state has a law against that sort of behavior. Here in Texas, it's one of the forms of "disorderly conduct."

Ok, but I'm not sure if you're saying here that we need a law to protect the flag or you think these other laws are enough.


Now, back to the flag guy. He was in a shopping plaza in front of a group of training paramedics.

No problem so far.


He was dragging a dirty flag behind his bicycle, saying "vulgar" things about America, and someone tried to grab the flag.

No problem here either, depending on what exactly he said that was "vulgar". If it was likely to cause disorder or unrest, he can and should be arrested for disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, etc. If he was simply expressing dissatisfaction with the government, I think his speech should be protected.

BTW, I think the guy who tried to grab the flag was completely out of line for trying to take someone else's personal property.


After an officer had detained him, he rubbed the flag on his crotch, sat on the flag, and put the flag down his pants.

I think that would be enough to detain him for psychological evaluation.:)


It would be one thing if he was making a constructive political protest, it's another thing if he's just trying to offend people.

If he was trying to offend people to the point of violence yes, but otherwise we have no right to protection from "offense".


It sounds to me like this guy falls into the latter category. He had people calling 911 and it sounds like he actually did create some sort of commotion.

Let a jury decide. If 12 Americans can be convinced that he was exceeding his freedom of speech rights, then he probably was.

I agree.

Here's another example--and we might be ranging far afield with this scenario--- you decide---(from previously posted website):


As noted in discussion of defamation elsewhere on this site free speech is not a blank cheque. The US Supreme Court, for example, in Virginia v Black ruled that states may outlaw acts of cross burning that are intended to intimidate, upholding most parts of a Virginia law that prohibited cross burning on public or private property. Justice Clarence Thomas commented that

Just as one cannot burn down someone's house to make a political point and then seek refuge in the First Amendment, those who hate cannot terrorize and intimidate to make their point.

Now, if the flag fella could be shown to be causing intimidation of bystanders, or, a riot/free-for/all broke out...well, as stated, free speech is not a blank check to perform mayhem.

BTW, I think the guy who tried to grab the flag was completely out of line for trying to take someone else's personal property.
Bullshit. The guy should've been bludgeoned to death by someone for fun.

Bullshit. The guy should've been bludgeoned to death by someone for fun.
America...fuck yeah!
Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah,
America, FUCK YEAH!

When have I ever mocked this country, foolsworth, in any way, shape or form?
I say to you, I have never done that.
In doing so, I would mock my own kin who helped found this place.
As for revolutionary ideas, the War was fought over taxes, not for so-called "suppressed" rights under the English. The British were quite fair to the colonists. Kindly read a history book now and then and enlighten yourself.

Again,Posteres herein Love to take things personally.
I was Assuming you meant to argue if favor of those who
Use the argument in favor of a Country that CAN Both be Mocked,
and also have every Right associated with it's Mockery.
I'm Sooooooooooooo sick of that argument.
It's One Keith the Kook Oberman uses,again and again.
Then he goes right ahead and Say's malicious and Seditious
things,about Our President.
I think it's a Nouveau Trick.It's become Kitschy Kool,to denigrade
the Presidency.I blame Clinton.What he did,and those
who defended his Outright Lie about - " I DID NOT have sexual
relations with THAT Woman ". And it Literally took a "cum stain"
on a Blue dress,to prove him a Scumbag.And IN Our Oval Office,nevertheless.Thereby Creating the New phrase :
" Oval Orifice ".
I think we've seen Politics degrade into a whoreson bag of Hypocrites.
Bush may be some things,But a Hypocrite,he ain't.

" It may be said of men in general that they are ungrateful and
fickle,dissemblers,avoiders of danger,and greedy of gain.So long
as you shower benefits upon them,they are all yours; "
-- Machiavelli

America...fuck yeah!
Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah,
America, FUCK YEAH!
It's good to see you don't think that's a "shitty" movie.

If he was trying to offend people to the point of violence yes, but otherwise we have no right to protection from "offense".

Whoa. Let's back up there. We have an entire thread in which people are arguing that we do have a right to protection from offense. People are saying Ann Coulter had no right to offend John Edwards or the Jersey Ladies.

Which is it? Do people have no right to protection against offense or do only certain people have no right to protection against offense?

It's good to see you don't think that's a "shitty" movie.
I give it a 2 out of 5.

I'll bet. Loser.

We were discussing whether Muslims and citizens of the West are the same or different. Innocent Sweetie was posting that she thinks they are the same.No, she wasn't.

Here's what she said:

Really Brooks, if this is what you believe in, then it's like you're saying that I, as a Middle Eastern woman, would want my son to be stupid enough to blow himself up. I'm pretty sure I don't want that. I'm also sure that no one in this forum believes that I would ever want that.
Nice stereotyping.

She makes absolutely no mention of any belief she has that Muslims and Westerners are the same. Rather, she is challenging Brooks for what she thinks is a stereotyping of Muslims on his part. Somehow (most likely through poor comprehension on your part) you managed to extrapolate a completely false premise, from which you proceeded to lecture Innocent Sweety as though she were a ten year old.

Here's a link to the thread in question:

http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=28645&page=2

You may wish to review this as you failed to grasp it the first time around.I was positing that they are not the same and that they have different attitudes fostered in the main by their upbringing. Mentioning the fact that Innocent Sweetie lived in the UAE was germane to the discussion, as was the fact that she is not representative of the average Muslim. The same can be said for my stating that interpretation of the Quran is one of the reasons for the Muslim mindset.None of which is germane because you are addressing an argument she never made -- another reason why I thought your post was condescending.There was nothing condescending about the post. Every point I made was directly addressed to what was being discussed. The fact that it came across as condescending to you shows that you simply were not capable of fully following the discussion. Now that was condescending and it was meant to be. So is this, Sedan. You are an idiot.Now here's a funny thing, Frogger, I don't find this condescending in the least. Apparently, when you try to condescend you fail miserably -- you only succeed in looking the fool. :)

Sedan, She states she is a middle eastern woman who does not harbor thoughts that others in the area do. By allowing that statement to stand without comment would be to agree that it represents middle eastern thought. It does not. Innocent Sweety is by no measurment the average Muslim. She lives in one of the world's most liberal Muslim countries. She is college educated. She is a world traveler. Reminding posters of those facts was in no way condescending. You seem to be looking for offense where there was none. That doesn't surprise me though.

Whoa. Let's back up there. We have an entire thread in which people are arguing that we do have a right to protection from offense.

Hmm...I thought that thread was more about whether or not "faggot" meant homosexual.


People are saying Ann Coulter had no right to offend John Edwards or the Jersey Ladies.

That's not what anyone said. Your premise is utterly false.


Which is it? Do people have no right to protection against offense or do only certain people have no right to protection against offense?

*sighs* Again, your argument is based on a false premise (strawman arguments are like that), and it also is a loaded question. Tell me Frogger, do you still beat your wife, yes or no? Which is it?

The truth of the matter is that everyone has a right to a certain level of protection from offensive conduct by others. This is determined by the conduct, and the circumstances, not by who those "certain people" are, as you implied.

Hmm...I thought that thread was more about whether or not "faggot" meant homosexual.

Well you thought wrong, but that's not all that unusual.

Reread the thread. Coulter was being castigated and demonized for daring to call Edwards a faggot and for insulting the Jersey Ladies.

Hmm...I thought that thread was more about whether or not "faggot" meant homosexual.

Well you thought wrong, but that's not all that unusual.

Shouldn't you be saving your condescension for sedan?


Reread the thread. Coulter was being castigated and demonized for daring to call Edwards a faggot and for insulting the Jersey Ladies.

So what? You're attempting to change the argument. She was rightfully castigated for what she said. Your contention was that people were saying they had a right to be protected from such speech. Your contention is false. :)

Sedan, She states she is a middle eastern woman who does not harbor thoughts that others in the area do. By allowing that statement to stand without comment would be to agree that it represents middle eastern thought.I don't know why you would think this. She never claimed she represented Middle Eastern thought. She was clearly speaking for herself -- she uses the word 'I' five times in a very short paragraph. But even if she did mean to represent Middle Eastern thought your point would be moot. She wasn't positing even then that Muslims are no different from Westerners, which was the false premise of your argument.

Nice try at obfuscation, though. :thumbs:

Nice try at obfuscation, though. :thumbs:

He keeps using that tactic and failing miserably. What is it people say about doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting a different outcome?

:@@:

Ignoring the idiotic Fran I will respond to Vilepagan and Sedan.

IShouldn't you be saving your condescension for sedan?

Not when you so richly deserved it, Vilepagan. You know what the thread is about but you tried to change it to be about something else in order to score debate points. That earned you condescension.

So what? You're attempting to change the argument. She was rightfully castigated for what she said. Your contention was that people were saying they had a right to be protected from such speech. Your contention is false.

No, Vile, it is you who are attempting to change the argument into one in which the word faggot cannot be used. You said the thread was about whether or not the word faggot meant homosexual and we both know that was only a part of what the thread was about. The thread is about whether Ann Coulter is evil incarnate because she dared insult John Edwards and the Jersey Ladies.


I don't know why you would think this. She never claimed she represented Middle Eastern thought. She was clearly speaking for herself -- she uses the word 'I' five times in a very short paragraph. But even if she did mean to represent Middle Eastern thought your point would be moot. She wasn't positing even then that Muslims are no different from Westerners, which was the false premise of your argument.

She was holding herself out as an exemplar. She was saying I don't do this. I don't think that. When someone holds themselves as an example of how members of a group think, ie. I am a member of that group and I don't think that way, they leave the door open for being shown they are not a typical member of that group. Innocent Sweety is no more representative of Muslim thinking than Donald Trump is representative of the thinking of New Yorkers.

No, Vile, it is you who are attempting to change the argument into one in which the word faggot cannot be used. You said the thread was about whether or not the word faggot meant homosexual and we both know that was only a part of what the thread was about. The thread is about whether Ann Coulter is evil incarnate because she dared insult John Edwards and the Jersey Ladies.ummm...you seem to not-understand/be-confusing the difference between stopping someone from saying something and ignoreing them for being offensive/stupid. Its the difference of me putting someone on ignore because I don't want to hear it or Vile banning them from the boards so no one can hear it.

Quarterton,

People were not arguing that Coulter should be ignored. They were arguing that she had no right to say what she did. I have no problem with people ignoring Coulter. Hell. I ignore Maher and Franken. I do have an argument with people saying she shouldn't be allowed to speak as she did.

Ignoring the idiotic Fran I will respond to Vilepagan and Sedan.No fair ... I thought I was the idiot. :( Innocent Sweety is no more representative of Muslim thinking than Donald Trump is representative of the thinking of New Yorkers.As tiresome as this has become I will post what she said one more time:

Really Brooks, if this is what you believe in, then it's like you're saying that I, as a Middle Eastern woman, would want my son to be stupid enough to blow himself up. I'm pretty sure I don't want that. I'm also sure that no one in this forum believes that I would ever want that.
Nice stereotyping.

She never claimed she was representative of Muslim thinking. It's wrong of you to pretend that she did. Furthermore, she never posited a belief that Muslims and Westerners are the same. It's wrong of you to pretend that she did.

To put it bluntly, you're just plain wrong.

[QUOTE=sedan]No, she wasn't.

Here's what she said:

*****************************************
Say Bub...what are you,the Court stenographer er what.?
Sure seems dat way.

Say Bub...what are you,the Court stenographer er what.?
Sure seems dat way.As Frogger himself recently pointed out in another thread, the problem with misrepresenting what someone says on a message board is that the original quote can be easily retrieved.

As Frogger himself recently pointed out in another thread, the problem with misrepresenting what someone says on a message board is that the original quote can be easily retrieved.
********************************
" Um...well...Like.. thanks to our special Guest and the Greatest
Poster of our time...Sedan. "
--- The Chris Farley Show

those who hate cannot terrorize and intimidate to make their point.

Well, no.

Unless, of course, it is this country doing said terrorizing and pre-emptively invading another country, because they possess oil that we want.

Not to worry though!.....we will be sure to wave the mighty US flag on high as we exterminate the evil-doers who are sitting upon "our" oil.

Perhaps I disremember, but I cannot recall reading of a single instance in which our Army fighting men, when they captured an enemy flag, showed disrespect to it.

There's just some things that civilized people don't do.

I don't mean to single you out, rendova, but I just find your (and other's) ideas of *respect* and *what civilized people don't do* to be totally bogus, totally hypocritical and one-sided.

You make much of the fact that 'our Army fighting men' do not disrespect the flag of others we are fighting.......yet at the same time you seem totally unconcerned and uncaring about the people in foreign lands that this nation bombs and kills.

Forget about a piece of cloth for a minute and ask yourself where is this nation's respect for THOSE people's lives?

There is none. This nation --with its flag flying proudly-- will kill anyone, anywhere, who gets in the way of U.S. Corporate profits.

That is the reality of this country. That is what this flag presides over and covers with the veneer of "civilized" behavior.

Respect --as sedan tried to point out to a few hardheaded flagwavers here-- cannot be coerced, it has to be earned.

-Quote- "He rubbed that flag across his body. He stomped on it. He dragged it down the street." said prosecutors during White's first appearance in court Tuesday.

-Quote- "When the police officer took him to the side, he sat down actually, put the flag in his pants, and sat down on the flag and then he was rubbing his privates with the flag. The police officer got very upset over that, you could tell," recalled Johnson.

-Quote- "He was just being hurtful and hateful I believe and just wanted to offend other people," said paramedic Greg Phelps who was also there.


Due to my profession, I am surrounded by patriots and people who actually love this country so it’s difficult for me to envision anyone desecrating the flag of the United States of America.

I live in an exclusive neighborhood in close proximity to the U.S. Air Force Academy where quite a few high ranking officers reside. I would pay good money to watch (for entertainment purposes only) anyone walk through my neighborhood with a flag hanging out of their pants.

Some of you fucking people disgust me.

.

While I would never do so I do feel people have the right to disrespect, mutilate or otherwise mistreat the flag. I also think such people should not be surprised if someone comes up and disrespects, mutilates or otherwise mistreats their face.Are you honestly advocating assault/battery, in America, for a person who is exercising speech as protected in the US Constitution?

Many of your posts seriously make me wonder at the content of the sermons you mentioned giving, Frogger. What did you teach the kids in Sunday School? "Don't like the other guys political statements? Hell, go attack him!" "Don't like the other guys political positions? Hell, call him a faggot!" Sick.

I live in an exclusive neighborhood in close proximity to the U.S. Air Force Academy where quite a few high ranking officers reside. I would pay good money to watch (for entertainment purposes only) anyone walk through my neighborhood with a flag hanging out of their pants.

Some of you fucking people disgust me.

.Those officers are sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States. Whether they agree with the stlye of protected speech or not. People who put symbols above principals are not patriots in my book.

I don't mean to single you out, rendova, but I just find your (and other's) ideas of *respect* and *what civilized people don't do* to be totally bogus, totally hypocritical and one-sided.

You make much of the fact that 'our Army fighting men' do not disrespect the flag of others we are fighting.......yet at the same time you seem totally unconcerned and uncaring about the people in foreign lands that this nation bombs and kills.

Forget about a piece of cloth for a minute and ask yourself where is this nation's respect for THOSE people's lives?

.

I challenge you to point out where I said that, ever, on these boards.

As you say, however, respect is a two way street.
Perhaps the insurgents, fighting under whatever flag they choose to use any said week, could show respect for human lives as well. Including their own.

To paraphrase:

"War is Hell."
William Tecumseh Sherman

Additional thought:

Ah, I see.
Because i have, throughout my life, shown and felt respect for this nation, and our flag, this makes me advocate killing people for no reason.
Lovely.

Due to my profession, I am surrounded by patriots and people who actually love this country so it’s difficult for me to envision anyone desecrating the flag of the United States of America.

Aside from the fact that they aren't desecrating the flag, what makes them people "who actually love this country" in your opinion?


Some of you fucking people disgust me.

Could you be more specific? Does everyone who thinks flag desecration should not be a crime disgust you?

One of the biggest errors of the SC was in confusing SPEACH with ACTIONS. I'll agree a person has the right to SAY anything they so desire. But that is as far as free SPEACH goes.

If my free speech, causes another to "act out" in a harmful manner should I be held accountable?

Shiloh,

Just where did I say I advocate beating the person? I said the person should not be surprised if someone beat them for showing such gross disrespect for the flag. I am one of those people who is almost totally against censorship and while I would be disgusted with that person's behavior I support his right to behave that way.

Here is what I posted.

While I would never do so I do feel people have the right to disrespect, mutilate or otherwise mistreat the flag. I also think such people should not be surprised if someone comes up and disrespects, mutilates or otherwise mistreats their face.

Notice, I said I support the man's right to act as he did. I also say the man should fully realize the consequences of his actions and should not be surprised if an angrey citizen in effect pummels him. I didn't advocate beating the man but I acknowledged that such a beating would be a likely consequence of his actions.

Actions have consequences. I you feel strongly enough to do that to the flag you should be willing to accept the consequences. People who wish to make strong, abhorrant social statements without accepting the consequences are like those anti-war students who used to trash the dean's office and then ask for amnisty. They totally lost any moral high ground they had.

One of the biggest errors of the SC was in confusing SPEACH with ACTIONS. I'll agree a person has the right to SAY anything they so desire. But that is as far as free SPEACH goes.

But where do you draw the line?

Is just oral speech protected or do you consider written words to be speech?

If the written word is acceptable, what about pictures?

Once you've accepted written words and pictures as "speech", and I think they are, what about symbols? The SC recognizes that "speech" isn't the only thing the writers of the constitution wanted to protect, but rather they wanted to protect the freedom to express ideas in any number of ways. Is it "symbolic" when a man burns a symbol? I certainly think it can be.

But where do you draw the line?

Is just oral speech protected or do you consider written words to be speech?

If the written word is acceptable, what about pictures?

Once you've accepted written words and pictures as "speech", and I think they are, what about symbols? The SC recognizes that "speech" isn't the only thing the writers of the constitution wanted to protect, but rather they wanted to protect the freedom to express ideas in any number of ways. Is it "symbolic" when a man burns a symbol? I certainly think it can be.

The founding fathers spent a lot of time debating every word contained within our constitution. They wanted to insure that certain, specific, things were protected. Had they intended to protect "freedom of expression" that is the term they would have used. Instead they chose, intensionally, to use the limited term "speech".

Vile: To address your other examples:

Many books, magazines and other printed material are currently restricted, by the age of people who have access to the material. The same is true of pictures and movies. In fact just the possession of some pictures and/or movies (child porn) is a felony.

The founding fathers spent a lot of time debating every word contained within our constitution. They wanted to insure that certain, specific, things were protected. Had they intended to protect "freedom of expression" that is the term they would have used. Instead they chose, intensionally, to use the limited term "speech".

They also specifically mention freedom of the press, so I can only assume you think the written word should be protected as well?

BTW, I didn't meant to imply that we should only grant those rights that were written into the constitution by the original drafters of the document. If we did that women and blacks wouldn't have the vote, and Senators would still be appointed rather than be elected. The "right to privacy" we all enjoy is only implied in the Constitution and obviously doesn't mention electronic communications at all, yet it has been interpreted generally to protect such communications.

Vile: To address your other examples:

Many books, magazines and other printed material are currently restricted, by the age of people who have access to the material. The same is true of pictures and movies. In fact just the possession of some pictures and/or movies (child porn) is a felony.

The question I was addressing wasn't whether some forms of speech may be restricted, since obviously they can, but rather whether burning a flag should be considered "speech" at all. I think it qualifies.

You can't pick which speech is protected and which is not. Even the most abhorrant examples of free speech must be protected or all speech in is danger of no longer being free.

What the man did was repugnant but it is exactly that sort of repugnant speech that must be protected.

The question I was addressing wasn't whether some forms of speech may be restricted, since obviously they can, but rather whether burning a flag should be considered "speech" at all. I think it qualifies.


I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't agree that actions should be considered speech.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't agree that actions should be considered speech.

In general I agree with you. Sadly, the courts have rules in some cases that campaign contributions constitute "speech" that can't be restricted. In the case of flag burning however, I believe that the "action" of burning the flag could be menat to communicate an idea and I think it should be protected.

What about wearing an armband? The only qualitative difference is that while wearing an armband is a passive speech action, burning a flag is an active one. The KKK burn crosses all the time, if we allow that, we should allow flags.

In general I agree with you. Sadly, the courts have rules in some cases that campaign contributions constitute "speech" that can't be restricted. In the case of flag burning however, I believe that the "action" of burning the flag could be menat to communicate an idea and I think it should be protected.

As I stated before, IMO, the SC has made many errors, especially in the interpretation of the Constitution.
Regarding flags, how do you feel about the use and display of the flags of the Confederate States of America? Should flying, or displaying any of those flags also be unrestricted? Particularly the Confederate Battle Flag?

What about wearing an armband? The only qualitative difference is that while wearing an armband is a passive speech action, burning a flag is an active one. The KKK burn crosses all the time, if we allow that, we should allow flags.


Hell, you can wear any armband you want, tattoo a swastika on your forehead. Who cares? Burning crosses, again these are all actions, not speech. They are expressions, usually of anger, or bigotry, and are used, almost, exclusively to generate anger in others. To be tolerated, maybe, protected, no.

Hell, you can wear any armband you want, tattoo a swastika on your forehead. Who cares? Burning crosses, again these are all actions, not speech. They are expressions, usually of anger, or bigotry, and are used, almost, exclusively to generate anger in others. To be tolerated, maybe, protected, no. Ummm, yes it is to be protected. Are you seriously saying anyone with a swastika tattoo or burning a cross should be arrested?

You got it backwards there. They should be protected, not tolerated. I'll talk shit to racist scum whenever and where ever I feel like it.

The KKK burn crosses all the time, if we allow that, we should allow flags.
I'm not 100% positive, but I think burning a cross is illegal - I believe it's because it signifies "intent to harm"...

I'm not 100% positive, but I think burning a cross is illegal - I believe it's because it signifies "intent to harm"...

I think it's probably legal for them to burn a cross at one of their rallies, but if they put one in someone's front yard and burn it that would be illegal.

Regarding flags, how do you feel about the use and display of the flags of the Confederate States of America? Should flying, or displaying any of those flags also be unrestricted? Particularly the Confederate Battle Flag?

I can only speak personally. I have no personal objections whatever to any of the Confederate flags. I see little point in flying them today in any "official" capacity, i.e. from government buildings etc., and I don't think they belong on the Capitol building of any state. I can also say that if I was a black man living in the south, I would probably feel differently, and would not like to see them anywhere. :)

Ummm, yes it is to be protected. Are you seriously saying anyone with a swastika tattoo or burning a cross should be arrested?

You got it backwards there. They should be protected, not tolerated. I'll talk shit to racist scum whenever and where ever I feel like it.

No, QT, I'm saying that their actions should not be considered speech. Nor should such actions be protected as "free speech". The Constitution has been unnecessarily stretched to include "freedom of expression".
As for racists, I'm required to tolerate them, I perfer not to waste time talking to them. Like fundies and liberals, you can not change them, they are what they are.

Originally Posted by Freethinker ---I don't mean to single you out, rendova, but I just find your (and other's) ideas of *respect* and *what civilized people don't do* to be totally bogus, totally hypocritical and one-sided.

You make much of the fact that 'our Army fighting men' do not disrespect the flag of others we are fighting.......yet at the same time you seem totally unconcerned and uncaring about the people in foreign lands that this nation bombs and kills.

Forget about a piece of cloth for a minute and ask yourself where is this nation's respect for THOSE people's lives?


I challenge you to point out where I said that, ever, on these boards.

""Originally Posted by rendova
Perhaps I disremember, but I cannot recall reading of a single instance in which our Army fighting men, when they captured an enemy flag, showed disrespect to it.""

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As you say, however, respect is a two way street.
Perhaps the insurgents, fighting under whatever flag they choose to use any said week, could show respect for human lives as well. Including their own.

They attack us out of retaliation for what this country is doing to them. bin Laden has clearly stated their reasons.

It is not your place to demand of THEM that they respect human life. It is your place to first demand that your OWN political leaders, your OWN political system respect other human's lives.

Yet America's leaders do not. Yet you support and respect them......and you demonstrate that support and respect by venerating the flag that they wave as they bully the world into submission to pave the way for the U.S. Corporations to prey upon the world's people.

Freethinker,

I ask you again to please point out where i have stated that I, personally, do not care abiut the killing going on in Iraq--or even elsewhere.

Also, to clarify--

Yes, I respect our flag. This does not necessarily mean I respect our leaders, our President, or the Senate. I respect the common American.

Truth be told, I think our last great, or even good, President, was Lincoln.

I respect the flag out of deeply held beliefs for what this country means to others--freedom. I respect the fighting men and women who fought for that and continue to ensure our freedoms.

I'm a historian. I have little interest in politics. Maybe 500 years from now some sad dolt will find this brouhaha interesting. At present, it is not.-- To me. An honest opinion.

A pox on both their houses, as a wise King of France once said. Or, as Cromwell once said,
"Come, I will put an end to your babbling."

Good advice that.

What is it, in the light of eternity?

Freethinker, I ask you again to please point out where i have stated that I, personally, do not care abiut the killing going on in Iraq--or even elsewhere.

To ask *again* you would have had to have asked it before.

In your prior post where you asked --"Where did I say that?"-- the only thing I had noted that you had said was what you said about US servicemen not disrespecting the enemy's flag.

I have never claimed that you stated that you personally do not care about the killing going on in Iraq; I was simply saying that by supporting and defending the far Right political system running the U.S., that DOES the killing, you --and by extension others like you who give their tacit support to B*sh and Company and their warmongering-- seemed to me to be unconcerned and uncaring about the people in foreign lands that this nation bombs and kills. Hope that makes it more clear what I was trying to get across.

Not to belabor the point, Freethinker, but this is what you said:

Originally Posted by Freethinker ---

"......yet at the same time you seem totally unconcerned and uncaring about the people in foreign lands that this nation bombs and kills."


Now, where in the name of God did THAT come from?

I try to be honest , and what do I get???

Heartache.
Nothing but heartache.

Ah well, we see things differently perhaps. As Kipling said,
East is east
and west is west
and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Or words to that effect...makes for interesting conversation tho.