Burning a flag while something I would never do isn't a direct threat of violence nor incites immediate fear like yelling fire in a theatre does. If someone wants to beat someone up for it, fine, but they should be prosecuted for it.
The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism.
The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism.
or a breach of the peace; or (2) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag either belonging to the United States or on lands reserved for the United States and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag.[4]
Burning a fag while something I would never do isn't a direct threat of violence nor incites immediate fear like yelling fire in a theatre does. If someone wants to beat someone up for it, fine, but they should be prosecuted for it.
The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism.
or a breach of the peace; or (2) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag either belonging to the United States or on lands reserved for the United States and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag.[4]
The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism.
Burning a flag is political speech, the SC made that determination decades ago. I don't trust the government to decide what kind of flag burning is intimidation and what isn't
The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism.
Burning a flag is political speech, the SC made that determination decades ago. I don't trust the government to decide what kind of flag burning is intimidation and what isn't
Agreed. My point was,, the bill that was provided, that never left committee, had that as a clause.
Burning the flag is FS. But it is free speech. I think our other laws already cover intimidation and terrorism.
Comments
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005
But still...
even the NY Times thinks you're an idiot.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/opinion/senator-clinton-in-pander-mode.html?_r=0
Burning the flag is FS. But it is free speech. I think our other laws already cover intimidation and terrorism.
That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.
If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.
The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.
Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.
HTH
If you only have 140 characters then you have to expect your readers to not be fucking retards
We are dealing with people here that think if you tell an actor to shut the fuck up you've trashed the constitution
Low information types