Welcome to the FirebirdV6.com/CamaroV6.com forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
While I find flag-burning reprehensible and would never do it myself, the act is protected under the 1st amendment as free speech. In Texas v. Johnson (1989) the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning was protected speech and that the Texas law prohibiting flag burning was content-related: in order to legally regulate speech, the regulation should not be based on the content of the speech, but rather on some other factor (for example, the court has held that the burning of draft cards during Vietnam was not protected because it hindered a legal governmental process: the selective service.) I
n other words, speech can't be regulated simply because one considers it abhorrent, reprehensible, immoral, etc: there has to be a LEGAL reason to regulate speech. While the 1st amendment isn't all-encompassing, the government must have a DAMN good reason for regulation of speech. That said, while flag-burning is sickening, its regulation could justify the hindrance of many other forms of speech simply based on the point that speech is trying to convey, not a legitimate reason. Content-based regulation of freedom of speech is purely and simply illegal, and while the Court disagrees about many things related to freedom of speech, it has almost unanimously agreed through the years that content-based regulation cannot stand under our Constitution....Justice Brennan, quoted in the opinion of Texas v. Johnson: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
This kind of regulation of speech is more reprehensible to our Constitution than is flag-burning, and when it comes down to it, the Constitution that protects my freedoms and created this great country is a lot more important than a mere symbol that is defiled every day by those that hate our country and its policies.
Even if Congress does eventually pass legislation of this type, the court will shoot it down based on this precedent.
-Eric<br />2002 Navy Blue Camaro...Striped and Stalled. 35th Anniversary SS wheels <br />Best ET: 15.384 @ 88.32 on street tires<br />Project Whitney: Goal, 14.0 1/4 by summer 2008.
While I find flag-burning reprehensible and would never do it myself, the act is protected under the 1st amendment as free speech. In Texas v. Johnson (1989) the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning was protected speech and that the Texas law prohibiting flag burning was content-related: in order to legally regulate speech, the regulation should not be based on the content of the speech, but rather on some other factor (for example, the court has held that the burning of draft cards during Vietnam was not protected because it hindered a legal governmental process: the selective service.) I
n other words, speech can't be regulated simply because one considers it abhorrent, reprehensible, immoral, etc: there has to be a LEGAL reason to regulate speech. While the 1st amendment isn't all-encompassing, the government must have a DAMN good reason for regulation of speech. That said, while flag-burning is sickening, its regulation could justify the hindrance of many other forms of speech simply based on the point that speech is trying to convey, not a legitimate reason. Content-based regulation of freedom of speech is purely and simply illegal, and while the Court disagrees about many things related to freedom of speech, it has almost unanimously agreed through the years that content-based regulation cannot stand under our Constitution....Justice Brennan, quoted in the opinion of Texas v. Johnson: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
This kind of regulation of speech is more reprehensible to our Constitution than is flag-burning, and when it comes down to it, the Constitution that protects my freedoms and created this great country is a lot more important than a mere symbol that is defiled every day by those that hate our country and its policies.
Even if Congress does eventually pass legislation of this type, the court will shoot it down based on this precedent.
Quoted for the truth
(sorry to quote such a long post)
Originally posted by Mighty Thor
Actually they shoot you in other countries. I forgot what part of Africa it is but one guy wore a shirt that express his hatred for that country's President and this guy went to jail for 20 years.
Yes, but our country isn't run by a crazy dictator (no matter what some weenies might say)
oh, so I can't even state my opinion? :rolleyes: That's really good.
So I can burn a flag but I can't state how I feel. Darn you first amendment rights, darn yoooooooouuuu!!!!!
oh, so I can't even state my opinion? :rolleyes: That's really good.
So I can burn a flag but I can't state how I feel. Darn you first amendment rights, darn yoooooooouuuu!!!!!
i believe you were the one that changed what i wrote.......
Quoted for the truth
Yes, but our country isn't run by a crazy dictator (no matter what some weenies might say)
He was asking what other countries do.
1st Amendment say Freedom of Speech (meaning to verbally express yourself without the fear of persecution), not freedom to be destructive. Imagine, you might as well burn the whole monuments around us if find you don't agree with America.
You know July 4th is coming up. When you look for a symbol that represent America and Freedom what do you think of, the American Flag. What does burning tell you?
Mighty Thor, did you even read my post? Flag burning is bad, mmmkkk? But censorship is worse...flag burners are arrested for desecrating the flag, not for being "destructive." It's not even destructive: aside from burn bans am I prohibited from burning anything else small like a flag? Content-based censorship is WRONG and desecrates our Constitution...have you read the First Amendment? Have you read any case law regarding the First Amendment? Ban flag burning and you might eventually see other forms of speech banned as a result. A land of censorship is not what the founding fathers had in mind (I'm talking to you too, FCC!!!)
When one refers to freedom of speech, that reference isn't only to verbal speech, but to symbolic speech as well: the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." It doesn't say Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of "VERBAL" speech, does it? Speech isn't simply verbal, it can be symbolic, and the Supreme Court has decided so on many separate occasions, with liberal and conservative justices making the judgments.
I hate to see such ignorance of the Constitution and the freedoms it gives us...you don't want people to desecrate the flag because it is a symbol of freedom, but to support this kind of censorship is to support taking away those exact freedoms. Then the flag no longer stands for freedom, it stands for censorship and restriction. I don't like to see the flag burned either, but there's more to the flag burning issue than a big piece of cloth: restricting flag burning desecrates the Constitution and, ultimately, what the flag stands for: the freedoms that the Constitution gives us.
-Eric<br />2002 Navy Blue Camaro...Striped and Stalled. 35th Anniversary SS wheels <br />Best ET: 15.384 @ 88.32 on street tires<br />Project Whitney: Goal, 14.0 1/4 by summer 2008.
Does it need a Constitutional Amendment? You gotta be kidding. Several reasons.
We have real problems and don't need to spend time and effort on symbols. It costs a fortune to run the Amendment process. Whatever value the ammendment has, it also compromises free speech.
Senators know all these things and the ammendment was never going to pass. It was a poltical game, nothing more.
"Senate Republican aides believe that as many as a dozen self-proclaimed amendment supporters privately opposed the flag burning amendment and were only supporting it for political gain. If the Amendment were to have actually passed, the aides predicted, those same politicians would have voted their conscience, dooming the flag-burning amendment on the Senate floor."
Republicans engineered the whole debate, knowing full well that the ammendment would fail in the Senate. They'd make sure of that. But they want to campaign this fall on the slogan "Vote for me, I'm against flag burning."
The question is: will the voters buy this? Or "I'm against gay marriage." Or, etc. Or will voters vote on the real issues, the war, the economy, terrorism, ...
-Eric<br />2002 Navy Blue Camaro...Striped and Stalled. 35th Anniversary SS wheels <br />Best ET: 15.384 @ 88.32 on street tires<br />Project Whitney: Goal, 14.0 1/4 by summer 2008.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment