...for "mutilating" the flag (http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=3733127&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1)

This better go to court and end up with that stupid law being overturned.

How is that a stupid law?

How is that a stupid law?
"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."

See also: Texas v. Johnson, United States v. Eichman

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.

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.
This describes my attitude on the matter perfectly.

How is that a stupid law?
What makes the flag so special that it can't be abused? It's a piece of cloth.

What makes the flag so special that it can't be abused? It's a piece of cloth.


Its not what it is, but what it once stood for.
Its a shame that so many citizens take everything about this country for granted, no wonder it is going to hell. Everyone bitches about the President, currently in office, but people have gotten just what they deserve.

"If convicted, White faces a year in jail and a $1000 fine"

That's a pretty stiff sentence. I doubt this law will stand.

I would forgo the sentence and fine and just send him on a weekend get-away to Paris Island.

:D

Could this in fact be Freethinker himself?

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/photo_servlet?contentId=3733038&version=1&locale=EN-US&subtype=MIMG&siteId=1018&isP16=true

Its not what it is, but what it once stood for.
It is the design for a flag our country chose roughly 200 years ago. It has had a few minor changes but to this day remains the flag that represents the country on the battlefield, the courthouse, and the embassy.

What did it once stand for that it no longer does? It is no longer a banner that is the "United States of America" flag?

Nevertheless it is still just a cloth, not the country, or its laws, or its people.
Its a shame that so many citizens take everything about this country for granted
Yeah, like their ability to freely speak out against the government. Far too many people think that burning the flag is taboo and evil.

It's just a cloth with an ugly design.
no wonder it is going to hell.
If citizens taking things for granted is indicative of our country going downhill, then we've never been going uphill, but always down.

Could this in fact be Freethinker himself?
Freethinker is an old pansy. If anyone on these forums would put the flag in their pants, it would be me.

It is the design for a flag our country chose roughly 200 years ago. It has had a few minor changes but to this day remains the flag that represents the country on the battlefield, the courthouse, and the embassy.

What did it once stand for that it no longer does? It is no longer a banner that is the "United States of America" flag?

Nevertheless it is still just a cloth, not the country, or its laws, or its people.

Yeah, like their ability to freely speak out against the government. Far too many people think that burning the flag is taboo and evil.

It's just a cloth with an ugly design.

If citizens taking things for granted is indicative of our country going downhill, then we've never been going uphill, but always down.


This country started its down hill, high speed, slide during the mid 1960's, when more and more of its citizens developed an attitude just like your's. So many of you appear to respect nothing, not even yourselves. It is truly a sad, sad thing.

If you must ask about what our flag once stood for, you are more of the problem than I first thought. It was, at one time, a strong symbol of those things set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Now its just a symbol of a greedy, self serving population, thats cares only for its free ride.

So many of you appear to respect nothing, not even yourselves. It is truly a sad, sad thing.
I respect humanity and the world in which it lives. I respect the smiles of children, the sound of the breeze through the leaves, and the ability to speak freely without fear of government repression. I respect the ability of people to worship and live where they please, and I respect the great power of the human mind, the emotions in which it unleashes, and the direction of humanity. We truly are a wonder, and I will always hold humanity and its basic rights far above any government or flag that "represents" a country.

There are more important things in this world than jingoistic ideas like the flag being sacred. That sort of nationalism gets people killed.

Do tell me again that I respect nothing, and that this lack of respect is a sad thing.

I suppose Betsy Ross coud've stolen a pair of Banastre Tarleton's underwear and sewn a flag design on them.

Then, 200 odd years later, this pathetic pissant could've shown how cool he is AND stayed ahead of the law at the same time.

I respect humanity and the world in which it lives. I respect the smiles of children, the sound of the breeze through the leaves, and the ability to speak freely without fear of government repression. I respect the ability of people to worship and live where they please, and I respect the great power of the human mind, the emotions in which it unleashes, and the direction of humanity. We truly are a wonder, and I will always hold humanity and its basic rights far above any government or flag that "represents" a country.

There are more important things in this world than jingoistic ideas like the flag being sacred. That sort of nationalism gets people killed.

Do tell me again that I respect nothing, and that this lack of respect is a sad thing.

I doubt, seriously, that you respect half the things you have listed, for anyone other than yourself. Because you don't even respect the government that allows those things. They are just the things you take for granted, never having lost them, or having to defend the right to have them. And yes, your lack of respect is a very sad thing.

This country started its down hill, high speed, slide during the mid 1960's, when more and more of its citizens developed an attitude just like your's. So many of you appear to respect nothing, not even yourselves. It is truly a sad, sad thing.

If you must ask about what our flag once stood for, you are more of the problem than I first thought. It was, at one time, a strong symbol of those things set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Now its just a symbol of a greedy, self serving population, thats cares only for its free ride.

I somewhat sympathize with this sentiment. An American calling the American flag "just a piece of cloth" is pretty obtuse and indicates distinct lack of appreciation; kindof like calling a swastika "just a drawing" or hundred dollar bills "just pieces of paper." Symbols are more than just what they appear to be.

But the law does abridge free speech IMO. They probably would have been safe charging the guy with disorderly conduct or harrassment (e.g. laws that prohibit behavior that is intended to offend the people around them).

I doubt, seriously, that you respect half the things you have listed, for anyone other than yourself. Because you don't even respect the government that allows those things.
The government does not allow life.
They are just the things you take for granted, never having lost them, or having to defend the right to have them.
I don't really have to thank the government for giving me freedom of speech. That is an inalienable right, and shouldn't have to be treated as a privelege that can be taken away---it's a human right.
And yes, your lack of respect is a very sad thing.
Fuck your patriotism then.

kindof like calling a swastika "just a drawing" or hundred dollar bills "just pieces of paper." Symbols are more than just what they appear to be.
Benjamins aren't exactly made from "paper" :D, and the swastika is an important religious symbol but still just that--a symbol. Not an idea.

Benjamins aren't exactly made from "paper" :D, and the swastika is an important religious symbol but still just that--a symbol. Not an idea.
The whole purpose of a symbol is to represent something (an idea, in the case of the swastika). It's no different with the American flag, which is a symbol that represents the country.

The whole purpose of a symbol is to represent something (an idea, in the case of the swastika). It's no different with the American flag, which is a symbol that represents the country.
I'll respect the idea, not the symbol that represents it. Such is the case of the United States. The fear of flag-burning and distaste of being "unpatriotic" is something that needs to be challenged constantly.

I don't really have to thank the government for giving me freedom of speech. That is an inalienable right, and shouldn't have to be treated as a privelege that can be taken away---it's a human right.




Correct--yet who got out and fought for it? Who put it on the line when it counted?

Or did they just look the other way and have someone else do it because they couldn't be bothered?

The Continentals and others did not look the other way. For those inalienable rights, they lay down their very lives. And they fought under certain flags, which symbolize that very inalienable right....see signature, flag of the 1st Regiment, New Jersey line, Continental Army, American Revolution---The "Jersey Blues"--regiment of my honorable gggggrandpa, Ephraim Kibbe, at Valley Forge, Monmouth, and Yorktown. The dude starved so people could disrespect the flag.

Huzzah!!!

The dude starved so people could disrespect the flag.
Then let people do so.

Forget it.

The problem is EXACTLY a lack of respect. That is what plagues or society as a whole. While it not illegal for one to wipe his ass with a picture of the Pope, it IS disrespectful to those who follow his teachings. It's not against the law to burn an effigy of someone's mother, but it is disrespectful to him and her.

Years ago, someone who pulled this kind of stunt would have most likely pummeled into submission, but we can't do that... it IS illegal and we one would likely to be prosecuted and/or sued for doing such. I'm not saying that this is the way issues such as this should be handled, it's just the way it was. Since we are afraid to say/do/anything that might infringe on the rights of an individual... we trample on the rights of a group.

I think many people "get off" on disrespecting others and causing a commotion. I suppose it makes them feel "special" and "important" in their own little minds. It's a grown up version of "look what I can do" using stupid antics designed to draw attention to themselves.

It's just the way our society is now... like it or not.

You used to catch more flies with honey, but I guess vinegar is the method of choice now.

:rolleyes:

While it not illegal for one to wipe his ass with a picture of the Pope
Thanks for the idea. Luckily I've plenty of pics of him around.

Very good, OP--in full agreement with this.

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 suppose that she is a cavewoman then:

http://www.bodylines.com/images/flagbikini.jpg

Nice swimsuit. Nothing wrong with that at all.
Putting a genuine American flag down your pants--crass. Just not done, old boy.

Nice swimsuit. Nothing wrong with that at all.
It's disgusting disrespect for the flag.

Putting it down your pants is wrong, but making it your pants is just dandy, I see.


Maybe if that woman had a miscarriage in that swimsuit you'd find the fetus patriotic?

Good lord, Evak.
kindly stay on topic.

We are discussing blatant disrespect for the flag--ie, putting an American flag down your PANTS, for god's sakes.

Wearing a Patriotic swimsuit, on the other hand, is not disrespectful.
Rather, it's touching. The suit was not once a flag. Surely you see the difference here.

Let me introduce the true- blue young lady to my son. He's always on the lookout for fine young patriotic American hotties, you know. Huzzah.

Maybe when evakian grows up he will realize how stupid he sounds right now.

Maybe when evakian grows up he will realize how stupid he sounds right now.
When I grow up I will be burning flags on my property.

Just to bother you, really.

The problem is EXACTLY a lack of respect. That is what plagues or society as a whole. While it not illegal for one to wipe his ass with a picture of the Pope, it IS disrespectful to those who follow his teachings. It's not against the law to burn an effigy of someone's mother, but it is disrespectful to him and her.

Years ago, someone who pulled this kind of stunt would have most likely pummeled into submission, but we can't do that... it IS illegal and we one would likely to be prosecuted and/or sued for doing such. I'm not saying that this is the way issues such as this should be handled, it's just the way it was. Since we are afraid to say/do/anything that might infringe on the rights of an individual... we trample on the rights of a group.

I think many people "get off" on disrespecting others and causing a commotion. I suppose it makes them feel "special" and "important" in their own little minds. It's a grown up version of "look what I can do" using stupid antics designed to draw attention to themselves.

It's just the way our society is now... like it or not.

You used to catch more flies with honey, but I guess vinegar is the method of choice now.

:rolleyes:
It is a lack of respect. Are you suggesting that the United States criminalize disrespect?

It is a lack of respect. Are you suggesting that the United States criminalize disrespect?
Great point.

The government does not allow life.
Well, that really depends on the government in question now, doesn't it?
I don't really have to thank the government for giving me freedom of speech. That is an inalienable right, and shouldn't have to be treated as a privelege that can be taken away---it's a human right.
Yeah, well why don't you take that ass of yours to Iran, China, Pakistan, Russia, ......hell, let's just say 70% of the globe for that matter, and exercise your precious, little "human right" there. Good luck, pal.

You know, moderate has you pegged pretty accurately.

Yeah, well why don't you take that ass of yours to Iran, China, Pakistan, Russia, ......hell, let's just say 70% of the globe for that matter, and exercise your precious, little "human right" there. Good luck, pal.
Just because Iran and China don't allow freedom of speech, the United States should restrict it as well?

It would be sad if Evak lived in such a country, Prae...but he doesn't. We're talking about the United States here. Don't bring such red herrings into the discussion.

It is not now, and it hasn't been for some time, a crime to make an absolute oaf out of yourself.





Huzzah.

Evakian is simply showing his immaturity. His in your face attitude is one often found among youngsters on the playground, sort of a nyah, nyah, taunt. It is not that he is simply supporting freedom of speech as others are doing but that he is being purposely disparaging. When he acts this way it is best to ignore him as you would any other brat.

The flag is only a piece of cloth but it is a piece of cloth like many others under which men and women have given their lives. They gave their lives not for the piece of cloth but for what that piece of cloth represents. To disrespect the flag is to disrespect those ideals and the men and women who gave their lives to protect those ideals.

Hats Off!

Along the street there comes

A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums,

A flash of color beneath the sky:

Hats off!

The colors before us fly....

But more than the flag is passing by....

Days of plenty and years of peace;

March of a strong land's swift increase;

Equal justice, right, and law,

Stately honor and reverend awe;

Sign of a nation, great and strong

To ward her people from foreign wrong:

Pride and glory and honor,-all

Live in the colors to stand or fall.

Hats off!

Along the street there comes

A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums;

And loyal hearts are beating high:

Hats off!

THE FLAG IS PASSING BY!



(Henry Holcomb Bennett)

Are you suggesting that the United States criminalize disrespect?
That's not what he was saying.

Just because Iran and China don't allow freedom of speech, the United States should restrict it as well?
And that's not what I was saying.

It is a lack of respect. Are you suggesting that the United States criminalize disrespect?

Funny you should ask that. Not so long ago there was an article about some reporter who refused to name his sources, who spent (I believe) a year or more in jail, for contempt (disrespect) of court. . There have been many others locked up (also without a trial) for shorter periods of time, under the same charge.

The flag is only a piece of cloth but it is a piece of cloth like many others under which men and women have given their lives. They gave their lives not for the piece of cloth but for what that piece of cloth represents. To disrespect the flag is to disrespect those ideals and the men and women who gave their lives to protect those ideals.
For what it's worth, I agree. I always get a swell of pride when the Star-Spangled Banner is playing at a baseball game. Is it jingoistic? I guess. I don't rightly care.

At one point in time, in my youth, I did not stand up for the national anthem at a baseball game. My dad rightly yelled at me for it. It is a mistake I have not made since. (I believe I was protesting Bush for some reason, I don't rightly recall why I did it.)

It is a lack of respect. Are you suggesting that the United States criminalize disrespect?


No, just stating a fact of our current society.

It's courtesy, not more laws, that we need.

As a society we lack balance, wisdom, and compassion. We are so self involved much of the time that we do not see our own selfish attitude (as seen on several posts here on allforums... in many "bashing" threads).

For example: If someone burned a picture of the Pope in protest of the Vatican's policy on birth control... because his son killed himself due to a priest's abuse (and the Vatican's related cover up).... I understand (although I may disagree with that type of display). If another person burned a picture of the Pope because he disliked his Catholic neighbor (and to get his 15 minutes of fame on the local news) .... then he is being a disrespectful ass.

The good of the one is greater than the good of the many - current U.S. social "system".

This just shows how insane this country is becoming!!

:(

Evakian is simply showing his immaturity. His in your face attitude is one often found among youngsters on the playground, sort of a nyah, nyah, taunt. It is not that he is simply supporting freedom of speech as others are doing but that he is being purposely disparaging. When he acts this way it is best to ignore him as you would any other brat.
Well if you're going to be a slovenly ass about it, just remember who will be running the country when you're dead.
To disrespect the flag is to disrespect those ideals and the men and women who gave their lives to protect those ideals.
Did those ideals include freedom of speech?

The thought struck me, as I was reading this thread, that there is a similarity between this issue and the so-called 'fairness doctrine'. I oppose the 'fairness doctrine' because, deep down, I believe that true liberalism must prevail on the strength of it's ideas. We don't need a law that demands equal time, we need arguments that compel equal time. Those who demand 'fairness' are in as many words saying their ideas need help in order to prevail.

Similarly, laws against 'abusing' the flag or beating the crap out of someone who burns a flag reflects a weakness of, or a lack of confidence in, the strength of 'conservative' ideas. You can't make people respect a flag. You have to persuade them that respecting the flag is a correct behavior. If you need laws or threats of violence to accomplish this you are in as many words saying that your ideas need help in order to prevail.

The flag is only a piece of cloth but it is a piece of cloth like many others under which men and women have given their lives. They gave their lives not for the piece of cloth but for what that piece of cloth represents. To disrespect the flag is to disrespect those ideals and the men and women who gave their lives to protect those ideals.

You may be right, as far your own opinions are concerned, but not everyone shares those opinions. If you attack someone for burning a flag, aren't you just attacking someone because they don't share the same beliefs?

Like everyone else, I respect the flag for what it represents to me, but I don't assume everyone shares the exact same level of reverence for the flag as I do. If someone wants to commit the questionable act of flag burning, that's their right, but I do suspect it's not a good way to win converts to your cause. The only reason I'd get upset about someone burning a flag is if it was my flag. :)

The thought struck me, as I was reading this thread, that there is a similarity between this issue and the so-called 'fairness doctrine'. I oppose the 'fairness doctrine' because, deep down, I believe that true liberalism must prevail on the strength of it's ideas. We don't need a law that demands equal time, we need arguments that compel equal time. Those who demand 'fairness' are in as many words saying their ideas need help in order to prevail.

Similarly, laws against 'abusing' the flag or beating the crap out of someone who burns a flag reflects a weakness of, or a lack of confidence in, the strength of 'conservative' ideas. You can't make people respect a flag. You have to persuade them that respecting the flag is a correct behavior. If you need laws or threats of violence to accomplish this you are in as many words saying that your ideas need help in order to prevail.

Excellent point sedan.

Excellent point sedan.

Bullfrogger.You sure as Tootin can make someone RESPECT
the Flag.Just let someone at a Ball Park,start doin somethin when
the National Anthem is played.
Or more directly,in a Courtroom.
It's like sayin,One can't be made to respect the Judge or
Courtroom.They will or else.
Judges and Cpurtrooms WILL be Respected.
Because in America,there is NO leeway,about that.
Same with Burning a Flag.
Just let some Dickhead,burn an American Flag,in Public.
With Freedom comes SOME Responsibility.
Thar Bubba's.

Bullfrogger.You sure as Tootin can make someone RESPECT
the Flag.Just let someone at a Ball Park,start doin somethin when
the National Anthem is played.
Or more directly,in a Courtroom.
It's like sayin,One can't be made to respect the Judge or
Courtroom.They will or else.
Judges and Cpurtrooms WILL be Respected.
Because in America,there is NO leeway,about that.
Same with Burning a Flag.
Just let some Dickhead,burn an American Flag,in Public.
With Freedom comes SOME Responsibility.
Thar Bubba's.

The laws that allow a judge to punish someone for contempt are a neccessary law enforcement tool. This mitigates the person's right to free speech. Similarly, a person could be arrested, and rightfully so, if his flag burning threatened to start a riot. There are many other situations where a person's right to free speech can be abridged, but in the abstract sense, burning a flag should not be a criminal offense.

The laws that allow a judge to punish someone for contempt are a neccessary law enforcement tool. This mitigates the person's right to free speech. Similarly, a person could be arrested, and rightfully so, if his flag burning threatened to start a riot. There are many other situations where a person's right to free speech can be abridged, but in the abstract sense, burning a flag should not be a criminal offense.

I just bet,if someone took a Book,an ordinary Book,and
put it on Fire,in Public,the Cops would have every right to
stop that person,and probably cite a local Fire Ordinance for
possible endangering of the Public.I car could breeze past,and that
burning book,could turn into a real spectacle.
We don't have near the Rights,some people profess.
In some urban city's,you can't walk down the sidewalk and
spit w/o being cited.
The Flag is THE most Sacred symbol of our Country.
Just like one really can't destroy Coinage.
Those coins don't really belong to any one person.They are Barter.
Same with a Flag.
A Flag is basically the property of ALL Americans.

A Flag is basically the property of ALL Americans.
No it isn't. It is the property of the person who bought it. If your argument held any water, flags could never be bought or sold. And, moreover, I could take any flag I wanted to and hang it from my house. And anyone could take my flag.

Your argument about fire ordinances is similarly vacuous. The person in the original post was not arrested for violating a fire ordinance, he was arrested for defacing an American flag. Big difference.

[QUOTE=BorgHunter]No it isn't. It is the property of the person who bought it. If your argument held any water, flags could never be bought or sold. And, moreover, I could take any flag I wanted to and hang it from my house. And anyone could take my flag.

There is such a thing as CONTEMPT for the Flag.
In Illinois,the state legislature increased the penalty for defacing or
showing "contempt " for the flag,from a ONE to a FIVE year
jail term,or a fine of $1,ooo to %5,ooo.
There most certainly IS a Flag Law & Protocol.
Flag-veneration laws.

There is such a thing as CONTEMPT for the Flag.
In Illinois,the state legislature increased the penalty for defacing or
showing "contempt " for the flag,from a ONE to a FIVE year
jail term,or a fine of $1,ooo to %5,ooo.
There most certainly IS a Flag Law & Protocol.
Flag-veneration laws.
The whole point of many in this thread is, there shouldn't be laws such as that.

The whole point of many in this thread is, there shouldn't be laws such as that.

Ah...Coulda,woulda,shoulda.
Maybe there shouldn't be any Underwear.
Ever thought a dat.?

Bullfrogger.You sure as Tootin can make someone RESPECT
the Flag.You can force someone to display the outward trappings of respect for a thing, but that has no more validity than a confession coerced by means of torture. True respect, the kind that comes from an inner conviction, can never be forced upon anyone.

Everything can be taken from a man or a woman but one thing: the last of human freedoms to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.

- Victor Frankl

You can force someone to display the outward trappings of respect for a thing, but that has no more validity than a confession coerced by means of torture. True respect, the kind that comes from an inner conviction, can never be forced upon anyone.

Everything can be taken from a man or a woman but one thing: the last of human freedoms to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.

- Victor Frankl

A Country devoid of the sanctity of certain maxims,is one that
cannot withstand the pressure of differences.

Maxims for Revolutionists
" Liberty means responsibility.That is why most men dread it. "
-- George Bernard Shaw

A Country devoid of the sanctity of certain maxims,is one that
cannot withstand the pressure of differences.So what?

That doesn't change coerced respect into true respect.

At the end of the day, the flag is cloth. Burning cloth should not be illegal.

Some people think pork is sacred, should we ban all of our citizens from eating pork?

So what?

That doesn't change coerced respect into true respect.

Well,what I'm a gettin at is.
We have lots of Rights in this Land.
Right to come & go as we please.
Right to Worship,as we please.
Right to Work where we please.
Right to Vote,Drive {Priviledge} and shop where we please.
Right to Counsel.
Right to an Education.
Right to Assemble.
Plus many more.
But,I don't believe the Founders insinuated Americans should
have the Right to Burn,Spit-on,Urinate-on or openly
Show disdain for The most inviolable of all the American
Symbols.The Flag stands for all that this Country has fought,bled
and Sweat for.It will not be desecrated.By penalty of Law.
We are a Civilized nation of Laws.
Not just Rights.

At the end of the day, the flag is cloth. Burning cloth should not be illegal.

Some people think pork is sacred, should we ban all of our citizens from eating pork?

Well than Money is just paper.
People are merely Flesh.
Yer Girlfriend is just Pork.I mean,A Pig.
Now,are ya Happy.

At the end of the day, the flag is cloth. Burning cloth should not be illegal.

Some people think pork is sacred, should we ban all of our citizens from eating pork?

The Constitution is only some words on paper, as are most books, under your logic they are all meaningless.
Someday, if you live long enough, you will understand that the meaning behind something makes it worthy of a great deal of respect and reverence. At least I hope you will.

But,I don't believe the Founders insinuated Americans should
have the Right to Burn,Spit-on,Urinate-on or openly
Show disdain for The most inviolable of all the American
Symbols.
Really? I beg to differ. Read the Constitution sometime.

The Constitution is only some words on paper, as are most books, under your logic they are all meaningless.
Someday, if you live long enough, you will understand that the meaning behind something makes it worthy of a great deal of respect and reverence. At least I hope you will.

No, you aren't using my logic. Books aren't symbols. The constitution actually has its ideas physically written on it. There isn't (much) room for interpretation.

The flag, on the other hand, can mean completely different things to different people. If people are not allowed to disrespect the flag, you are limiting their freedom of speech. I hold my freedom of speech with a great deal of respect and reverence.

The American flag is indeed a symbol and not just a piece of cloth. That, however does not make it right to ban it's desecration. In fact, we should be protecting that right as our benevolent granting of our freedom of expression. If the flag was indeed just cloth, we would have more of a leg to stand on when we want to protect it. But as a symbol, it represents one of the highest forms of expression we can come up with. If we are allowed to fly it high and proud as an expression of our pride in our nation, so should we be allowed to burn it, piss on it, wear it as a garment, whatever as an expression of our dissatisfaction with the current order of things. It is indeed morally corrupt to desecrate your own nation's flag, but our government is not in the business of legislating morality, it is in the business of securing freedom.

You may be right, as far your own opinions are concerned, but not everyone shares those opinions. If you attack someone for burning a flag, aren't you just attacking someone because they don't share the same beliefs?

Like everyone else, I respect the flag for what it represents to me, but I don't assume everyone shares the exact same level of reverence for the flag as I do. If someone wants to commit the questionable act of flag burning, that's their right, but I do suspect it's not a good way to win converts to your cause. The only reason I'd get upset about someone burning a flag is if it was my flag. :)

Way to subtley change the discussion, Vilepagan. Burnng the flag is one thing, doing what that man did to the flag and what Evakian said he would like to do to the flag is something different. Burning the flag is a political act. Shoving it down your pants is simply an aggressive act to piss off other people. When you purposely piss off other people you should be prepared for the consequeces.

People should have the legal right to desecrate the flag but they should also remember that when you go out of your way to insult people by desecrating something they hold in high esteem you run the risk of being made to pay for that act not by the law but by the people you were so intent on insulting. While we have freedom of speech if you go up to your neighbor and insult his wife you might be legally within your right but chances are you will get your ass kicked.

Way to subtley change the discussion, Vilepagan. Burnng the flag is one thing, doing what that man did to the flag and what Evakian said he would like to do to the flag is something different. Burning the flag is a political act. Shoving it down your pants is simply an aggressive act to piss off other people.

Again Frogger, That's your opinion, and you're entitltled to it, but not everyone shares your criteria about what constitutes a "political act" and what constitutes "an aggressive act to piss off other people". Indeed I doubt few would agree with your subtle distinction.


When you purposely piss off other people you should be prepared for the consequeces.

Frankly Frogger, considering your little exchange with Evak the other day, you should be the last person lecturing people about that particular concept.

[QUOTE=Frogger]Way to subtley change the discussion, Vilepagan. Burnng the flag is one thing, doing what that man did to the flag and what Evakian said he would like to do to the flag is something different. Burning the flag is a political act. Shoving it down your pants is simply an aggressive act to piss off other people. When you purposely piss off other people you should be prepared for the consequeces.

People should have the legal right to desecrate the flag but they should also remember that when you go out of your way to insult people by desecrating something they hold in high esteem you run the risk of being made to pay for that act not by the law but by the people you were so intent on insulting. While we have freedom of speech if you go up to your neighbor and insult his wife you might be legally within your right but chances are you will get your ass kicked.[/QUOT

************************************************

I'm Not sure I understand where you're goin.
Unless you're one a them Libertarian nutjobbers,who can't think
beyond their own,personal selfishness.Libertarian only
feel they need what's in their best interest.A Total Laissez-faire
attitude of " hands Off " Gov't.
But We,the People,don't have the right to Burn Money.
Or Cuss,shout,spit,in Court.
We can't sashay down a public sidewalk,nude.
May be denied service in a Restaurant if not wearing a shirt
or shoes.
Can't Smoke in Public Bldgs.
Can't consume Alcohol,while riding puiblic transportation.
Or even a cab.
Urinate on a public sidewalk,or a Public statue,fountain and face
arrest.
I'm sorry you can't understand that.
Maybe if we just FIRED a feud Libertarian,along our Great Historic Past,
we wouldn't have to face this Dilemna,Today.
America is the Land of Opportunity and Freedom.
S'not the Land of ANYTHING Goes.
Thank GoD.
E pluribus unum

De Dignitate et Augmentis Scientiarum {1623}

" Hurl calumnies boldly;something is sure to stick.
It is due to Justice that man is a God to man,and not a wolf.
Great hypocrites are the true atheists. "
-- Lord Verulam

The American flag is indeed a symbol and not just a piece of cloth.
To you.
It is indeed morally corrupt to desecrate your own nation's flag
Nap, is that you?

Similarly, laws against 'abusing' the flag or beating the crap out of someone who burns a flag reflects a weakness of, or a lack of confidence in, the strength of 'conservative' ideas. You can't make people respect a flag. You have to persuade them that respecting the flag is a correct behavior. If you need laws or threats of violence to accomplish this you are in as many words saying that your ideas need help in order to prevail.
Make military service mandatory (like in Sweden). That'd make people "respect" it.

So what?

That doesn't change coerced respect into true respect.

So what if some stranger in the street spits a big loogie in your wife's face, are you going to try to "persuade" them that that's wrong?

What if someone walks into a funeral procession and starts making lewd motions to the casket? Should the family of the deceased have to persuade him that that's wrong?

No, there's a point when being disrespectful becomes criminal. Something that's extraordinarily offensive and you should know it. At that point, you should pay a price.

Once again, that's not to say I think you need a flag protection law to do that. You can achieve this goal with regular harrassment and disorderly conduct type laws.

And I think the guy in this story rises to that level.

Many adults are not persuadable, as any regular poster in allforums should know.

Well said, Leper.

So what if some stranger in the street spits a big loogie in your wife's face, are you going to try to "persuade" them that that's wrong?
First I break their legs. Then I beat them against a fire hydrant, and kick their ribs in. Then the kids playing on the street come to watch as he wallows in pain.

Then later I get shot at a traffic stop by the mob, and Al Pacino becomes famous.

Wait, are you comparing an act of physical offense towards another human the same as that to a flag?
You can achieve this goal with regular harrassment and disorderly conduct type laws.
If disrespect is criminal I should've gotten arrested several times over in Sunday school.

I remember one day I had to sit in the hall for asking "If Jesus was fully man and fully God, did he get erections? How long were they?"

And when we discussed the immaculate conception I had to do extra Bible study because I said, "If Jesus is Mary's son, God got Mary pregnant, and Jesus is God, doesn't that make Jesus a motherfucker?"

You see, spitting on the flag may hurt people's feelings, but are we going to legislate on that touchy-feely basis? A flag has never been and never will be more important than a human life. Burning a flag and spitting on a woman aren't comparable.

Wait, are you comparing an act of physical offense towards another human the same as that to a flag?

Your skipping the funeral casket example is glaring. I included that example in anticipation of this response...

But sedan was talking in terms of "disrespect" and "respect." Spitting on someone is an action of disrespect, not an action of physical harm.

Your skipping the funeral casket example is glaring.
What did he say?

Maybe this guy was putting the flag down his pants to show how much he loves it...
:D

Spitting on someone is an action of disrespect, not an action of physical harm.

The law doesn't look at it that way. Spitting on someone is considered "Assault and Battery." (It's even illegal to spit on sidewalks in most places.)

In the context of criminal law, "assault and battery" are typically components of a single offense. In tort law, "assault" and "battery" are separate, with an assault being an act which creates fear of an imminent battery, and the battery being an unlawful touching. Assault and battery are intentional torts, meaning that the defendant actually intends to put the plaintiff in fear of being battered, or intends to wrongfully touch the plaintiff. The wrongful touching need not inflict physical injury, and may be indirect (such as contact through a thrown stone, or spitting). This article describes the law of assault and battery as it is commonly applied, although the law may vary in any specific jurisdiction.
Assault

An assault involves:

1. An intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force;
2. Under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril;
3. Where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented.

Note that an assault can be completed even if there is no actual contact with the plaintiff, and even if the defendant had no actual ability to carry out the apparent threat. For example, a defendant who points a realistic toy gun at the plaintiff may be liable for assault, even though the defendant was fifty feet away from the plaintiff and had no actual ability to inflict harm from that distance.

Battery

A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or substance put in motion by that other person. Please note that an offensive touching can constitute a battery even if it does not cause injury, and could not reasonably be expected to cause injury. A defendant who emphatically pokes the plaintiff in the chest with his index finger to emphasize a point may be culpable for battery (although the damages award that results may well be nominal). A defendant who spits on a plaintiff, even though there is little chance that the spitting will cause any injury other than to the plaintiff's dignity, has committed a battery.

Spitting on someone is an action of disrespect, not an action of physical harm.
As Frannie said, spitting on someone is battery. Mainly because you don't know if the person has a disease or not.

But We,the People,don't have the right to Burn Money.

Sorry, Foolworthy but we do have the right to burn money. We also have the right to deface it. What we don't have the right to do is alter or deface it with the intent to defraud.

So what if some stranger in the street spits a big loogie in your wife's face, are you going to try to "persuade" them that that's wrong?

What if someone walks into a funeral procession and starts making lewd motions to the casket? Should the family of the deceased have to persuade him that that's wrong?

No, there's a point when being disrespectful becomes criminal. Something that's extraordinarily offensive and you should know it. At that point, you should pay a price.

Once again, that's not to say I think you need a flag protection law to do that. You can achieve this goal with regular harrassment and disorderly conduct type laws.

And I think the guy in this story rises to that level.

Many adults are not persuadable, as any regular poster in allforums should know.First of all, I was responding to Foolsworth. He first made the argument that we can force people to respect the flag. I replied, in as many words, that you can coerce the appearance of respect but that true respect has to come from inner conviction. It was when Foolsworth countered this with

A Country devoid of the sanctity of certain maxims,is one that
cannot withstand the pressure of differences.
that I responded with "So what? That doesn't change coerced respect into true respect."

In other words, I was telling him that his post did not address my argument. So I think you may have missed the point of what I was saying.

Secondly, I agree with most of what you're saying here except for one thing. I don't think "there's a point when being disrespectful becomes criminal". There are actions which are criminal, and disrespect can lead to those actions. But you don't prosecute the attitude, you prosecute the act. There are many ways of showing disrespect that don't involve a criminal act. A disrespectful act that is not a criminal act should be considered free and protected expression.

Secondly, I agree with most of what you're saying here except for one thing. I don't think "there's a point when being disrespectful becomes criminal". There are actions which are criminal, and disrespect can lead to those actions. But you don't prosecute the attitude, you prosecute the act. There are many ways of showing disrespect that don't involve a criminal act. A disrespectful act that is not a criminal act should be considered free and protected expression.[/QUOTE]

Not So,at all."Scotter" Libby was not a criminal,before his name
was bandied about by certain individuals tryin to take the
White House Down.
Libby was a Good Public Servant,and also a Lawyer.
He certainly wasn't disrespectful to the Grand Jury,but telling
things underoath,whether Lies,or just misbegotten recall,is a
simple fact the Courts view as " Disrespectful ".
Who's to say Libby's recollections weren't more accurate than
Tim Russert.?
Libby was Prosecuted because of his attitude.If not,then
there wasn't any need for him to take the stand.
The Prosecutor would have had ample hard evidence,w/o even
askin him a single question.
Libby was Prosecuted entirely based on his Apperance of
attitude and his close ties.
Libby committed NO act of Lying.His Attitude was Prosecuted.
He was tricked by questions that were exclusively meant to
entrapp his faulty recollections.

Not So,at all."Scotter" Libby was not a criminal,before his name
was bandied about by certain individuals tryin to take the
White House Down.
Libby was a Good Public Servant,and also a Lawyer.
He certainly wasn't disrespectful to the Grand Jury,but telling
things underoath,whether Lies,or just misbegotten recall,is a
simple fact the Courts view as " Disrespectful ".
Who's to say Libby's recollections weren't more accurate than
Tim Russert.?
Libby was Prosecuted because of his attitude.If not,then
there wasn't any need for him to take the stand.
The Prosecutor would have had ample hard evidence,w/o even
askin him a single question.
Libby was Prosecuted entirely based on his Apperance of
attitude and his close ties.
Libby committed NO act of Lying.His Attitude was Prosecuted.
He was tricked by questions that were exclusively meant to
entrapp his faulty recollections.Libby was convicted of perjury and obstructing justice. Those are actions, not attitudes. You can argue that he was wrongly convicted of taking those actions, but it makes no sense to say he was convicted for having a disrespectful attitude -- because he wasn't.

Nap, is that you?
I certainly wouldn't do it. It's abhorrent. I love the US as much as the next guy. I just don't feel the need to shout it from the rooftops. A flag is the symbol of that love. It's to be respected and held in high esteem. But I can understand why people would do it, and I would think very poorly of the people who would go to the effort to ban it. As repugnant as the act of burning it is, the act of jailing people that do is far more repulsive.

Libby was convicted of perjury and obstructing justice. Those are actions, not attitudes. You can argue that he was wrongly convicted of taking those actions, but it makes no sense to say he was convicted for having a disrespectful attitude -- because he wasn't.

Actions My Ass,thar Bub.
Libby was hauled befopre a Special Prosecutor for the sole
purpose of making said Prosecutor appear tough.
Said Prosecutor KNEW beforehand who FIRST Leaked the name of
Valerie Plame.
Libby did nothing.Was found guilty of misleading recollections
in regareds to Other's statements and time frame.
He could have pled the 5th.But was forthright enough to
stand by what he thought was correct.
Tell me EXACTLY What Action "Scooter"was found Guilty OF.
After all that time and 2 years,you should be able to tell
Me EXACTLY WHAT Libby said that was a Direct LIE.?
If ya can't then yer just a Stoolie or Enabler of the
Vast Leftist Media Cabal.
What EXACTLY did LIBBY Say that got him 30 months.??????????

Tell me EXACTLY What Action "Scooter"was found Guilty OF.I already did.

Perjury and obstruction of justice, both of which are actions.

I already did.

Perjury and obstruction of justice, both of which are actions.

Perjury {Lying} about what Said.?
Don't you think,in all fairness it's ruther important to pin
down,Exactly what someone said,that got them 30 months in
the klink.I mean,Libby was a Career Public servant.
Aren't you the least interested in what The Guy said,in an
Investigation with NO Underlying crime.
The Fitz never stated that Plame was Covert.But merely an
undercover Agent.That isn't covered by The Espionage Act.
Victoria Toensing,had much to say about the Sham of this
entire Investigation.She helped Co-author the latest version of the
the Espionage Act.

I was part of an honor guard detail today for the funeral of a war veteran (probably of the Korean War, judging by his date of birth). As for all veterans receiving military honors, his casket was draped in the American flag. We proceeded to play Taps, removed the flag from the casket, folded it and presented it to the next of kin, in this case the daughter of the deceased. Once the flag was presented to her, she clutched it tight and wiped tears from her eyes. As she left the funeral, she still held it tightly with both arms, almost like she wouldn't ever let it go. She came and spoke to us before she left and told us that she planned to put the flag in a case as a memorial to her father.

I staunchly oppose laws against desecrating the flag, but anyone who thinks that the flag is nothing more than a piece of cloth suffers from a serious lack of perspective.

I staunchly oppose laws against desecrating the flag, but anyone who thinks that the flag is nothing more than a piece of cloth suffers from a serious lack of perspective.
You mean a different perspective, as I don't give a rat's ass about that ugly piece of cloth and don't hold it representative of these lofty values that so many attach to it.

You mean a different perspective, as I don't give a rat's ass about that ugly piece of cloth and don't hold it representative of these lofty values that so many attach to it.

Like a few others on this forum, I've become quite tired of your crap. I'm done with you. Don't attempt to contact me in any way, shape or form as you'll get absolutely no response.

:upyours:

So if martians invade and you're the last man on earth with weed and military experience, and I am the only one who knows how to stop them, you won't want my help?

I'm crushed, sir. Absolutely crushed.

I think I need to go eat some oreos and burn a flag, that always cheers me up.

Evakian, it seems like you've from simply being facetious to saying inflammatory things just to get a rise out of people. All I have to say is, grow the fuck up.

Evakian, it seems like you've from simply being facetious to saying inflammatory things just to get a rise out of people. All I have to say is, grow the fuck up.
I'm in agreement here. Evak, it used to be funny, now it no longer is. I don't know if you changed or if it just got old, but it's getting to the point where you desperately need a new shtick.

Secondly, I agree with most of what you're saying here except for one thing. I don't think "there's a point when being disrespectful becomes criminal". There are actions which are criminal, and disrespect can lead to those actions. But you don't prosecute the attitude, you prosecute the act. There are many ways of showing disrespect that don't involve a criminal act. A disrespectful act that is not a criminal act should be considered free and protected expression.

I'm not really sure how you're distinguishing between "attitude" and "act."

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? Is making offensive gestures free and protected expression?

Personally, I don't think so. There are certain things that people can communicate that are so universally offensive that you should know it's going to cause trouble. Those communications should be and are criminalized.

As Frannie said, spitting on someone is battery. Mainly because you don't know if the person has a disease or not.

No, it's battery because it's offensive. For the same reason, groping a stranger's butt is battery.

I'm in agreement here. Evak, it used to be funny, now it no longer is. I don't know if you changed or if it just got old, but it's getting to the point where you desperately need a new shtick.
I shall take this into consideration right away Captain!!

Evakian, it seems like you've from simply being facetious to saying inflammatory things just to get a rise out of people. All I have to say is, grow the fuck up.

Like a few others on this forum, I've become quite tired of your crap. I'm done with you. Don't attempt to contact me in any way, shape or form as you'll get absolutely no response.


Just out of curiosity, and for the sake of discussion, what was so inflammatory about Evak's post? He basically said he doesn't share your level of reverence for a symbol. The most vulgar term he used was "rat's ass", and that doesn't even come close to being offensive. What's the big deal if someone else doesn't respect the same things you do? Don't we all respect different things in different ways? Evak didn't insult either one of you personally...why the outrage? Do either one of you remember what it was like to be 17?

No, it's battery because it's offensive. For the same reason, groping a stranger's butt is battery.

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

Do either one of you remember what it was like to be 17?
What? I'm a 30 year old Chicagoan who works for his dad and who enjoys cars and hating mexicans.