Kristofer wrote: Burning the American flag is a protected right.

In the US, anyway.

Burning an American flag in a number of other countries will land you in jail.

Rambino wrote: Kristofer wrote: Burning the American flag is a protected right. NOT Burning an American flag in a number of other countries will land you in jail.

fixed

CarbineKid wrote: Mack wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: cadet_sergeant wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: cadet_sergeant wrote: However light a fire in my front yard and you'll be staring down the barrel of my shotgun. No, I really don't think they would be. Because you know me so well don't you? Now I may not have a round chambered, but i'd have it pointed in your direction. No, no you wouldn't. Okay, now I'm curious. Why wouldn't he? Why would he? You don't point a gun at anythign you don't plan on shooting. Now I guess the case might be made that he was potecting his home from 3 intruders. He does not know their motives, but I assume he will notice they are trying to set fire to his house. However Tae is just trying to provoke him(check out the FN 5.7 pistol thread to see what I'm saying). Anyhow I'm glad these 3 critters are being charged, as they should.

/agree

There are so many things to get pissed over in this country, some idiots exersicing a measure of stupidity ... and getting caught for the illegality of it (rather than the emotional reaction the action of 'flag burning' evokes) indicates that all is well and good with this paticular incident.  Everybody has some form of ideals or passions, and in this country you're allowed to express them (almost) whatever they are, just ... do it with some intelligence and you'll get in a lot less trouble.

The PC police haven't taken over yet ...

Tae Kwon Do wrote: Him claiming that he would do it is just an attempt to puff his internet persona up, because everyone on the internet suddenly has the courage to do anything.

Ditto - except that it is not limited to the internet.  This type of bs machismo is right up there with "pry the gun from my cold, dead hands".  All talk, no action.

Some people would in fact whip out the shotgun if somebody burned a flag - but some people also like to eat feces.  Most people aren't insane.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: Mack wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: cadet_sergeant wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: cadet_sergeant wrote: However light a fire in my front yard and you'll be staring down the barrel of my shotgun. No, I really don't think they would be. Because you know me so well don't you? Now I may not have a round chambered, but i'd have it pointed in your direction. No, no you wouldn't. Okay, now I'm curious. Why wouldn't he? Because people normally do not do things like that. Would he yell at them? Probably. Call the police, yeah. Might even push them or something to start confrontation. But as far as whipping a shotgun out and pointing it at them? That just screams of someone trying to be an internet badass. At the time, in a given situation, I highly doubt he would whip his shotgun out. Pointing guns at people tends to get you in trouble, and I am pretty sure he knows this. Him claiming that he would do it is just an attempt to puff his internet persona up, because everyone on the internet suddenly has the courage to do anything.

people have killed for alot less, granted these people probably dont frequent paintball forums.

oldsoldier wrote: Question: If burning the flag is legal and considered "protected speach" why is burning a cross illegal, which also is someones "protected speach". If a burning threatens or angers a party or individual per the supreme court it is not considered protected speech, so if burning the flag angers or threatens someone why is there a differance? Or are only a few protected classes to be "protected".

It is upheld because it is free speech. The reason burning the cross is illegal is because it is considered a threat (i.e. burning a cross on someone else's yard gives the threat of "get out"). Burning something may not threaten a party, but it may anger a party. Simply offending someone with the burning of the flag is not enough to be illegal; however, this was different because it was on someone else's property.

Um... the Supreme Court ruled on a Virginia statute, and the court said that cross burning is legal as long as it is not used to intimidate and threaten others. So cross burning is legal unless you use to to threaten and intimidate (aka burn it with the intent and so that people of a specific race will see it, and have it be used as a threat).

Burning a flag is obviously done to make a statement about the state of affairs in or involving the United States. Not with the intent to intimidate or threaten a specific group of people, generally relating to race, as was the reasoning behind the cross burning ruling.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/07/scotus.cross.burning/ - http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/07/scotus.cross.burning/

Linus wrote: But Dune, that is NOT what you said in your original post, you know, the post that I was responding to, and the response that debunked you point. I see flag burning as a threat as a person sworn to protect the US... why is it still legal?

Debunked what? What are you talking about? Unless you are unable to read, it is still legal because it is not considered a threat to anyone in the US military. Burning a flag is not the same as burning a cross. Unless you know better than the Supreme Court, that is your answer.

Linus wrote: Dune.... When crosses were first burnt, it was freedom of speech, was it not? Then bad things started happening to the people who the burnings were aimed at. Why not stomp the fire out before it starts? And last i checked.. the House/Senate and Pres has the ultimate word on this, not the justices.

It's all checks and balances, but I don't see House and Senate overturning their rules. Cross burning started long ago, and it may have been considered free speech. However, it has always been associated with the threatening attitude, especially when it's done on the front door of the neighborhood minority family. I don't see many anarchist groups going around burning flags in veteran's yards to tell them "get out." Once again, they can not be equated.

Texas v. Johnson, (1989). U.S. v. Eichman, (1990).

Virginia v. Black, (2003). Read this one carefully, because cross burning is protected under freedom of speech in some instances.

Wow Linus, I don't whether to congratulate you in basing your entire opinion on your own narrow minded view of the world and experiences, or on your inabiltity to use proper words such as BURNED instead of BURNT.

However I digress, flag burning is an intricate and complicated issue touching on the emotions of many Americans. I, being a pragmatic individual can not reasonably compare it to cross burning, other than the fact that in both instances something is ignited on fire.

From my perspective it seems Linus' argument is not one based on his love of the United States, in which case you should dislike flag burning, but wish to have it remain legal as per the first amendement (to what end is it to protect a nation, and in essence, the ideals of a nation, if you then wish make expressions that are symbolic or inevitably written or verbal illegal, it seems to fly in the face of the nations ideals?).

In actuality it seems to my Linus sees flag burners as a threat to the foundations of the United States, and he refuses to differentiate between people who are symbolically showing displeasure with the government's actions (which is entirely different than the national ideal), and individuals foreign and domestic who actually seek to due to the nation, and its citizens harm.

He seems to promote the idea that flag burning should be illegal due to the possible threat that arises. I say the threat is negligable if existant at all, and that it is fundamentally wrong to legislate against, ot persecute individuals who could possibly in the future commit an act that might be illegal. In this nation you shouldn't even assume guilt of a crime that was committed prior to trial.

You might be a marine Linus, but you are very unamerican.

As for flag burning in itself... I do not burn flags, but I do not see it as inherently evil. I see the flag as simply a symbol of the government. The government cannot be the ideal, but simply the means by which the citizens in a democracy or republic try to reach the ideals. In the USA, the constitution enbodies these ideals.

In actuality you are sworn to protect the Constitution, and subsequently the government/ nation; as is the president and other governmental officials, not the flag.

During the revolutionary war flag burning, and burning effigies of prominent officials was common place, as a method to show displeasure with the status quo. If the founding elements of this nation carried out such acts, why should they now be made illegal?

Thomas Jefferson, a prominent and well respected founding father, as well as president of the United States, believed in freedom, and felt that government would inevitably become corrupt, so that revolutions might be considered necessary to allow the populace to remain free. It can hardly be said then that the founding father's, some of which promoted such ideas, would hardly support legislation such as anti-flag burning bills.

It seems to me the only reasons that exist for laws that prevent flag burning are:

1) respect for fallen soldiers
2) fear of insurrection
3) love of america

#2 is such an obtuse point I should not have included it on the list, #3 means that you should then love the ideal and thereby tolerate flag burning, and #1, yes many people have died defending the USA, defending their families, and defending the ideals put forth in the Constitution, not in defending a piece of fabric. That fabric might represent a government, but it does not represent in effect a nation, or the ideals of said nation, in effect making that point moot as well.

Any additional comments or debate on the topic would be more than welcomed.

Linus wrote: 2) Right back at you TKD... give me valid reasons why it SHOULD be legal, considering so many people are againt it. "Freedom of speech" has already been tramped around like a 10 cent prostitute. Give me something new.

This post demonstrates elegantly how thoroughly you DON'T understand the concept of "freedom of speech" or the reasons behind it.  Freedom of speech isn't a "10 cent prostitute".  It is not merely something you find in democratic societies.  Instead, it IS democracy.  Democracy without freedom of speech is an oxymoron - it is completely meaningless.

And most central of all to a democracy is the freedom to criticize the government and its policies.  How could an election ever be meaningful if one could not criticize the government or the candidates?

Every single restriction placed placed on the people's ability to criticize the government erodes our democracy.  Not in a theoretical way, but in a very direct and practical way.  The founders understood this, and the Supreme Court understands this - which is why political speech, particularly political speech critical of the government, get the very highest protections of all under the first amendment.

This is not merely to protect a "right" of the people - it is to protect the very concept of democracy.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: So lets all get this out of our systems and drop the cross thing, because it really is a moot point.

Don't you mean, a mute point?

Perhaps the batteries in your sarcasm detector need changed...  Hence the winking smiley.

I know it's moot... Mute drives me crazy, and seems to be favored by many of the kiddies and not-so-kiddies on this board.  I also want to set fire to something when I see a 'would of' or 'could of'...

Wow. just.... wow.

Anyway, about the cross burning....

Anyone that is burning a cross on another persons lawn is not burning a cross to get them to leave, they are burning a lower case "T" for time to leave.

DUH!

(Sorry I had to)

See, this is who I should be talking to.

Kayback - you following the World Cup?

pwned?  You only beat them by 67 runs.

We beat them by 113.   :P

And 67 runs...  where have I heard that number before...  oh yeah - didn't you guys lose to BANGLADESH by ... 67 runs?

(We beat Bangladesh by 198)

And I am always up for a friendly cricket wager...  just ask Kristofer.  :)

In my hopeful moments I fantasize about a '96 repeat.  In my more lucid moments, I admit that NZ/Aus is the likely final.  But I figure it's probably the four of us to the semis.

We both play NZ in the next couple of days - that may determine both our fates.

Perhaps a wager about comparitive results vs. NZ?

(BTW, nice job giving up four wickets in four balls.  I'm sure nobody will remember that.)

I figure the wager is who wins/loses, and if both win/lose, then the better run difference wins.

If you win, I could offer up Sri Lankan tea, or Wisconsin cheese, or something else American...

If I win, you can send me something from South Africa.  I think you guys make diamonds, right...?    :)

I would personally much rather have the dried meat - but I kind of appreciate the "tea vs tea" symmetry (assuming some Ceylon tea is interesting to you, and assuming I still have some at home, which I will check).

Otherwise, cool US exports...  hmm...  perhaps the forum can make some suggestions?  I would send you a Harley, but I don't think it would fit in the box.

Flag ribbons are good - I was also thinking about one of those flag-shirts, or maybe something from Colbert Nation...

Of course, this is all theoretical, since I will win the bet anyway.