Ultron

I don't agree with this kind of logic. That's like saying to the plantiff, admit you killed those children and I won't call you a child-killer. An extreme example, I know, but the price isn't worth the cost of agreeing to your statement above.

Melkor

At that point, your expression runs a pretty heavy risk of bodily harming others, and it would obviously be limited... the analogy stinks.

Now, change that to someone going into a public place with a big American flag with the words "IMPERIALIST PIGS" painted across Old Glory, and is waving it around.... you are also saying that we don't have the right to that, either?

Or how about a big American flag with a picture of G.W. Bush painted on it with a big red "X" across his face and the flag itself?


The issue at hand here is not so much the actual fire or fire codes... the issue is whether or not the flag of the United States is an acceptable medium by which to express political discontent.

Ut

Well, I guess nobody is claiming you'd have the right to wrap someone in an American flag and set them on fire in the name of free speech.

However, in every situation where you'd have the right to burn a random piece of cloth, you should have the right to burn the American flag. In every situation where you'd have the right to draw a big red 'X' over a random piece of cloth, you should have the right to draw a big red 'X' over the American flag. When you have the right to rip a piece of cloth, you have the right to rip an American flag.

Ultron

I agree 100% here.

BTW I am trying to avoid the tangents like NK/SK, someone or someone else being racist, etc in this thread, to focus on the flag burning issue.

seanie

Don't be silly. It's well established that freedom of speech doesn't extend to shouting 'Fire' in a crowded theatre. All freedoms are limited by the extent they may infringe other freedoms. In this case other peoples right to safety and security.

Burning flags in crowded cafeterias is dangerous. Buildings can burn too. Therefore it's not protected.

But standing outside the cafeteria burning a flag should be fine because your right to free expression isn't threatening the rights of other people.

It may piss them off.

But nobody has a constitutional right not to be pissed off.

Ultron

Understandably.

I can't fault you at all for this.

Well keep in mind we don't have any Amendments making flag burning a Constitutionally-protected Right. I am sure in many places that activity isn't banned though. But if the flag means anything to you, certainly the US Constitution should be important as well. It's what guarantees us the right to free speech and the ability to voice our discontent. I seriously doubt we'll have an Amendment ever take that ability away.

But to make flag-burning an act that's Constitutionally protected we need to work within the Constution to do that, by making a flag-burning Amendment that protects such activity.

I personally disagree with the sentiment behind flag-burning. But if it doesn't violate any local fire codes or risk anyone's lives to do it, I wouldn't try to stop it.

Well literally speaking a flag is just a flag, and burning it isn't speech.

Melkor

Sure we do. The First Amendment does. And even if that's not clear enough, as I mentioned before, just because the Constitution doesn't specifically ennumerate a right, doesn't mean that it does not exist.By that logic, we're going to need an awfully huge number of amendments to specifically guarantee a lot of things that aren't specifically guaranteed.

But then, we don't need those, because it actually says in the Constitution that if it's not listed there, that doesn't mean it isn't recognized. So that would be redundant. No, but it is very clearly intended to communicate something, and as such it is definitely "speech". There is no question of that. Court after court has ruled various forms of non-verbal communication "speech" and therefore protected Constitutionally, some even more obscure than flag defacement.

Ultron

I never had a problem with it.

Well you're supposed to have the option of not saying it. Parents can request the school to not have their kids say it. If the kids are being forced beyond that, then the parents can probably sue.

Fair enough.

Anti-patriotism can get out of hand, too. But we shouldn't punish the majority of people for the actions of a few.

Ultron

Sounds good to me.

Where in the definition of speech does the word "image" appear?

Imagery is clearly not speech.

Melkor

Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, "just because we've listed some really nifty rights here, that doesn't mean that stuff we didn't list isn't still valid".

Similarly,

Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, "the powers of the government are limited to those listed. If it's not here, the government shouldn't do it."


The Constitution is a neat document for (if nothing else) those two reasons... it stacks the deck in favor of as much freedom on the part of the people as possible, and actually specifically limits the powers of the Federal Government and the States, without specifically limiting rights of the people those governments are intended to serve.