Nobody hates the 1st amendment more than Trump
Comments
-
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.
-
HondoFS Is just mad because the authoritarian he doesn't like said this rather than the authoritarian he loves.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005 -
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.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:HondoFS Is just mad because the authoritarian he doesn't like said this rather than the authoritarian he loves.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005 -
WowWeAreAFatLesboSchool said:HondoFS Is just mad because the authoritarian he doesn't like said this rather than the authoritarian he loves.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005
But still... -
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]2001400ex said:
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.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:HondoFS Is just mad because the authoritarian he doesn't like said this rather than the authoritarian he loves.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005
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
-
yep. and Obama repealed habeus corpus in the shitty NDAA of 2012 that he signed. everyone sucksWeAreAFatLesboSchool said:HondoFS Is just mad because the authoritarian he doesn't like said this rather than the authoritarian he loves.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005 -
dhdawg said:
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.
-
Yeah and Hillary couldn't even get the law on the floor with a conservative Congress. Do you have a point?WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:
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]2001400ex said:
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.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:HondoFS Is just mad because the authoritarian he doesn't like said this rather than the authoritarian he loves.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005
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 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't2001400ex said:
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.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:HondoFS Is just mad because the authoritarian he doesn't like said this rather than the authoritarian he loves.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005 -
Agreed. My point was,, the bill that was provided, that never left committee, had that as a clause.dhdawg said:
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't2001400ex said:
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.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:HondoFS Is just mad because the authoritarian he doesn't like said this rather than the authoritarian he loves.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005
Burning the flag is FS. But it is free speech. I think our other laws already cover intimidation and terrorism.
