Flag burning amendment rejected.
By on Jun 27th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
Flag burning amendment rejected.
The amendment failed 66-34, one vote shy of the 67 needed to send it to the states for ratification.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
66 senators need to get removed from office.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:38 pmcool the quicker they get through this crap the quicker we can work on real problems.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:39 pmWuhu!
June 27th, 2006 at 6:39 pmKrazny (Post #2):
LOL! Like they’re REALLY gonna do THAT!!!!
June 27th, 2006 at 6:41 pm66 Senators have confirmed that they are brain-dead! Every one of them should resign from the Senate, so they can be replaced!
June 27th, 2006 at 6:41 pmCan we now get busy on something real important like gay marriage? /sarcasm off
June 27th, 2006 at 6:42 pmDoes this mean that 10 Democratic Senators voted for the Flag Amendment? Anyone have the link to vote?
June 27th, 2006 at 6:43 pmwhat are the other countries that have banned flag burning?
June 27th, 2006 at 6:44 pmThank God. But I’m still angry at Dianne Feinstein for her vote in support of the amendment.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:44 pmHurrah!. I was afraid of having to fight this in 50 different states! And imagine what South Dakota might have done.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:44 pmwhat ,no arm twisting,bribing,favors,blackmail,miscounts,”accidentally” switching nays for yays, hold up the vote till you have the numbers, going past the alloted legal voting time? you’re slipping righties. You’ll get em’ next time.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:45 pmNow i don’t have to go stock up on flags. I had a real fear i’d have start burning some.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:47 pm#8… the other states that have banned flag burning are: Iraq (when under Saddam), China, Cuba, and Iran.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:48 pmre: #10….i believe that relatively soon in SD, we’ll see our dumbass legislature roll out a proposal that sex can only be allowed by heterosexual married couples underneath a fireproof flag, provided that such sex is purely for procreational purposes and induces no pleasure whatsoever.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:50 pm66 Senators have confirmed that they are brain-dead! Every one of them should resign from the Senate, so they can be replaced!
I agree. Seriously.
what are the other countries that have banned flag burning?
I don’t think there’s any real oversight, since Think Progress and other sites often only count countries where burning the country’s own flag isn’t allowed. Norway has a law on the books that forbids desecrating the flags of other nations, which I think is equally bad.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:53 pmIncredible.
You mean there are Congressmen out there calling themselves Democrats who voted for this crime against American freedom?
Find out who supported it and vote them out.
Thank God that one vote saved our Sacred flag from this desecration.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:55 pmChina, Cuba, and Iran.
To think, the Republicans in control of our government have something in common with the above mentioned regimes.
I have a suggestion: order a flag that has been flown over the Bush White House (from your congressperson).
Celebrate your freedom of speech by burning it.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:55 pmIt’s…It’s …it’s like they’re expecting people to get pissed-off in the near future and burn the flag
June 27th, 2006 at 6:56 pmYou can burn people,napalm,W.P.,bombs,etc. just don’t burn the flag!
June 27th, 2006 at 7:01 pmI am glad it didn’t pass because I am sure some idiot would try to burn a flag in my presence, I would smack them silly, and then the police would arrest me for some sort of hate crime.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:01 pmConstitution NOT desecrated!
June 27th, 2006 at 7:01 pmCons CRY, while real patriotic folks CHEER!
Obviously making a law that says the flag cannot be burned as an act of peaceful protest of the government, violates the very rights that the flag is supposed to represent.
There is NO excuse for not being able to see that.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:05 pmBurning a flag is not covered by the First Amendment, but outlawing it is completely retarded. Who cares if people burn their flag? Their flag, they can do whatever the hell they want with it.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:07 pmLOL RRS,
if and old man like you tried to smack me silly, I would wait for you to throw the first punch, kick your ass and let the police arrest you for assualt.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:08 pmOkay, time to get back on the important issue . . . .
June 27th, 2006 at 7:09 pmthe steriod use by the high school chess teams.
The flag amendment is defeated-The Republic is Lost!!
June 27th, 2006 at 7:12 pmComment by Seixon — June 27, 2006
The Supreme Court thinks it is.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:29 pmBriseadh na Faire,
No, it doesn’t. You’re taking a case with special circumstances and applying it broadly. Burning something is not free speech. If it was, then burning books would also be free speech. I don’t think anyone here would agree that burning books is a good thing.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:34 pmWhew! Glad that failed. Can’t actually believe it was this close! Not good. But still – focusing on the positive – the asinine thing failed! Yes!
Now, can we move on to getting rid of the burning Bush and the Dick-tator occupying the White House?
June 27th, 2006 at 7:40 pmWhen Dubya autographs an American flag, is he not desecrating it?
June 27th, 2006 at 7:41 pmWell Condumbs, conviction right? You cannot have it both ways, if someone violates the law and Bush desecrated the flag you must convict right?
RIGHT? WELL???????
1. TITLE 4 > CHAPTER 1 > § 8
§ 8. Respect for flag
(g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
For the trolls out there. Both “George†and “Bush†are words and a signature is an insignia. Plus, all of the words are made up of letters. If he followed up his signature with a smiley face, that would be a picture.
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/06/did-george-bush-deface-american-flags.ht ml
TITLE 4 > CHAPTER 1 > § 3
§ 3. Use of flag for advertising purposes; mutilation of flag
Release date: 2006-03-20
Any person who, within the District of Columbia, in any manner, for exhibition or display, shall place or cause to be placed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing, or any advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America; or shall expose or cause to be exposed to public view any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign upon which shall have been printed, painted, or otherwise placed, or to which shall be attached, appended, affixed, or annexed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, or drawing, or any advertisement of any nature; or who, within the District of Columbia, shall manufacture, sell, expose for sale, or to public view, or give away or have in possession for sale, or to be given away or for use for any purpose, any article or substance being an article of merchandise, or a receptacle for merchandise or article or thing for carrying or transporting merchandise, upon which shall have been printed, painted, attached, or otherwise placed a representation of any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign, to advertise, call attention to, decorate, mark, or distinguish the article or substance on which so placed shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $100 or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both, in the discretion of the court. The words “flag, standard, colors, or ensignâ€, as used herein, shall include any flag, standard, colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance, of any size evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America or a picture or a representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, colors, standard, or ensign of the United States of America.
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/06/did-george-bush-deface-american-flags.ht ml
June 27th, 2006 at 7:42 pmI read that it was 4 shy of the votes needed for ratification. Is it safe to assume that Hilary vote for ratification? If she did, then she certainly is not presidential material.
I learned in school that burning the flag was the proper disposal of the flag. If flag burning is banned, what would we do with all the old flags? Recycle them into clothing?
June 27th, 2006 at 7:43 pmI think burning right wing neocon books is a GOOD THING.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:44 pmI believe several Democrats voted in FAVOR of this ridiculous and dangerous piece of legislation and maybe three Republicans voted against it. Compliment those senators who supported America and free speech by voting “nay,” regardless of their party.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:45 pmPledging allegience to anything is idolitry and what does this flag stand for right now? The right to trash the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, invade sovereign nations without reason but on suspision? This is the worst congress, senate and administration in the history of the United States. These past few years have been nothing but blathering idiots giving their leader all the power he wants to wage a successfull war on freedom while creating a terrorist training ground. Never has the hill been so pathetic and the pentagon done such a disgracefull and pathetic form of “planning”.
The only thing coming out of our “leadership” are slogans and cliches created from focus groups to tell us what they have determined we want to hear. The do nothing congress has relinquished all power in a time of NO DECLARED WAR. Perhaps those that do think we are at war would like to clarify just who we are fighting against and how, rather than what we are fighting against and with weapons rather than intelligence! Congress and the Senate should be voted out almost entirely. We, the people, need a new start and a strenghtening of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the checks and balances of power.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:48 pmhow depressing is that to have 66 chickenshit dickheads, that have not the slightest clue what the grandeur of America is… in such positions of power.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:48 pm.
Another failure of the radical right to win the hearts and minds of Americans.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:48 pmThank God the amendment tanked, barely. Actually, it offends me much more to see G. Bush wearing one of his little “Commander in Chief” outfits with a flag on it.
Diane Feinstein really voted for this? I’m feeling sick.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:49 pmFeinsteins finished.
VOTE HER OUT!
She’s NO Liberal. She’s NO Progressive.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:03 pmFor once I agree with you guys this was a stupid idea and an obvious political stunt. Now the pc crowd should go away too for they also pose a serious threat to free speech.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:10 pmsome of those Ds on the Yea list are confusing…
June 27th, 2006 at 8:11 pmso unfortunate…
Sexion,
June 27th, 2006 at 8:23 pmPlease show me a law where the burning of a book will put you into jail. I personally never have done it but I would be interested in knowing that. Also is there a law against putting a wet booger on Ann Coulter’s face on her book in Barnes and Noble?
‘Cause then I might be in trouble.
once and a while things turn out the right way… you can’t force people to respect something just because YOU think it’s important…
http://blogdebogs.blogspot.com/2006/06/protecting-flag-burning-issue.html
June 27th, 2006 at 8:23 pmHere are the 66 who voted YEA
Grouped By Vote Position YEAs —66
June 27th, 2006 at 8:34 pmAlexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Burning the flag is indeed an act of peaceful protest against a government.
It is done, and has been done, in countries throughout the world for thousands of years.
Additionally it is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
This is a broad right to protest, and the framers of the Constitution were careful not to identify any ONE method of protest, other than to dictate that it be a “peaceful protest”.
Since there is no Constitutional declaration authorizing a single medium or vehicle for the people to assemble, deciding how, where and when to assemble, and what to do once they have assembled, has been left in the hands of the people.
Where it belongs.
Therefore, if I am burning my flag, at a time or a place where general burning is not prohibited, and with others who have assembled with me, to voice our grievance of the government, then that is my Constitutional right.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:38 pmI am glad it didn’t pass because I am sure some idiot would try to burn a flag in my presence, I would smack them silly, and then the police would arrest me for some sort of hate crime.
Comment by Retired Republican Soldier
I could see an old retired military guy getting pissed and punching some punk burning a flag … just dont send in the cops to force the point and all is normal.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:39 pmI am glad it didn’t pass because I am sure some idiot would try to burn a flag in my presence, I would smack them silly, and then the police would arrest me for some sort of hate crime.
Comment by Retired Republican Soldier
Just don’t come crying when you get clubbed in that thick snout of yours.
In fact, it would be my pleasure to assist you, or any of your inbred trailer trash buddies who who want to try.
Republicans are wimps.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:46 pmLike most everybody else here, I’m glad it didn’t pass, but this was way too close for comfort. This one almost got snuck past us.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:11 pmLight ‘em if you got ‘em.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:13 pmdlet,
Please show me a law where the burning of a book will put you into jail. I personally never have done it but I would be interested in knowing that. Also is there a law against putting a wet booger on Ann Coulter’s face on her book in Barnes and Noble?
‘Cause then I might be in trouble.
Obviously you missed where I said that a flag burning amendment is stupid. That still doesn’t make it an “expression”. Cheers.
Betty,
Here are the 66 who voted YEA
Vote them out of office!
Worfeus,
According to your standards, almost anything would be “peaceful protest”. I don’t see burning things as “peaceful”. Do you? Burning is by its very nature destructive, which is not peaceful.
Therefore, if I am burning my flag, at a time or a place where general burning is not prohibited, and with others who have assembled with me, to voice our grievance of the government, then that is my Constitutional right.
It’s more like a property right than anything else. Burning a flag is not “expression”, it is destruction. You don’t destroy things when you are expressing yourself.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:16 pmYup, flag burning is a HUGE issue that this country has to do something about. All 4 flags that were burned last year is a HUGE issue. These republicans in the majority really know what the american people want them to fight for! What Iraq war, forget about healthcare, who needs cheap prescription drugs, you don’t care about tax breaks they just gave to the rich, what about an investigation into outing a CIA officer, or Katrina, how about 9-11? Nah, flag burning is more important than all these issues.
God help America.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:19 pmI don’t see burning things as “peacefulâ€. Do you?
Comment by Seixon — June 27, 2006 @ 9:16 pm
Uh, yea.
Thats why I said it. Duh.
If its my flag, and I’m in a place where its safe, and legal to burn, (in DC you can have open fires in several areas with a permit), and I burn it, than that IS a peaceful assembly.
I am not violating any laws, I am not hurting anyone, maligning anyone, taking anyones property, threatening anyone, or causing any monetary harm to any person, group or entity.
I am therefore, “peaceful”.
I can however assume from your ridiculous question, that you find the Campfire Girls Of America, violent?
June 27th, 2006 at 9:23 pmHere are the 66 who voted YEA
Comment by Betty — June 27, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
Betty ~ Can you list the nays also … to give credit where credit is due? I can’t believe some of those people who voted yea … it’s really an eye-opener and more than disappointing.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:24 pmAnd by the way Sexion, you might also want to consider the fact that the US FLag Code specifically indicates that disposing of a flag by burning, is not only, quote, “Respectful”, but also PATRIOTIC.
Go figure.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:25 pmFor all Californians,
Here is a reason to finally give Feinstein the boot!!!
This is her response to my letter against the Flag Burning Amendment.
June 27, 2006
Dear Mr. Bartoy:
Thank you for writing to express your opposition to a
constitutional amendment prohibiting the physical desecration of the
American flag. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts
with me.
Unfortunately, we will have to disagree about this issue. I
strongly believe that the American flag holds a unique position in our
society as the most important and universally recognized symbol that
unites us as a nation. The flag — as a symbol of our nationhood — can
and should be respected and protected from attack. Beyond my personal
convictions, many Californians have told me of their desire for such
protection for our flag. Indeed, California had a flag protection statute
from 1929 until 1989, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the
flag protection statutes of 47 states and the Federal government.
The authority for a nation to protect its central symbol of unity
was considered constitutional for two centuries. It was only a decade
ago that a narrow majority of the U.S. Supreme Court said otherwise. At
this point, it seems clear that the only way to protect the American flag is
to amend the Constitution to authorize Congress to prohibit the physical
desecration of the flag. In the 108th Congress I was an original cosponsor
of Senate Joint Resolution 4 (S. J. Res. 4) which would have done just
that. I will continue to pursue the topic in the 109th Congress.
Please know that I value your opinion, but on this issue I am
afraid we will remain in disagreement. However, I greatly appreciate
your input and hope that you will continue to share your views with me.
If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call my
Washington, DC staff at (202) 224-3841.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
June 27th, 2006 at 9:27 pmUnited States Senator
The link to the Senate vote on S.J.RES.12: http://tinyurl.com/qkadc
June 27th, 2006 at 9:33 pmThe reason I am posting in this thread, and the reason I see this issue as so important, other than the damage to our liberty and our Constitution, is because it is the perfect example, and a perfect demonstration of the emotionally motivated right.
Everything they do, and I mean EVERYTHING, is based on one thing.
EMOTION.
They attacked Iraq not because they presented a threat, but because they wanted to kill Arabs. The emotion?
Revenge.
And the flag burning ammendment is not because flag burning in any way threatens America, or Americans, but because it makes them “feel bad”.
The emotion?
Anger.
Mark my words and see for yourselves. Go back, and look at everything a republican does. I mean EVERYTHING.
You will find that EVERYTHING republicans do are not based on logic, reason or deduction. They are ALL however based on emotions.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:37 pmPS.
Vote FEINSTEIN out.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:39 pmSeixon-”Burning something is not free speech. If it was, then burning books would also be free speech.”
Burning books is considered free speech. This isn’t a moral debate, Seixon, it’s a legal one. The jurisprudence is very clear here; that’s why the conservatives want to pass an amendment. Please read Texas v. Johnson:
June 27th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
#49 – Surprise! Both of my Senators are there. At least they’re consistent. *sigh*
June 27th, 2006 at 9:48 pm#61 & #64: so you’re going to give Feinstein the boot? Well, since the primary was three weeks ago, I guess that means you’ll be voting for the Republican candidate, Dick Mountjoy?
June 27th, 2006 at 9:49 pmNot likely Dave as A, I am not one of her constituents, and B, I obviously mean at the next possible opportunity.
But nice, ignore lines and lines of facts I wrote about, to focus on an off topic tidbit.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:53 pmBy my count, 14 Democrats voted for the resolution! That is totally unacceptable. What is wrong with these people? It can be said that the resolution failed ONLY because 3 Republicans (Bennett, Chafee, and McConnell) and 1 Independent (Jeffords) voted against the resolution.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:58 pmSee http://tinyurl.com/qkadc.
McConnell voted against? …very strange. I guess he’s soo far right , that he’s got a bit of Libertarian in him. hmm. Dont think that we’ll be allowed to ‘move on. This is all about exciting and diverting their base in preparation for non-stop attacks on everyone else. Fall 2006.
June 27th, 2006 at 11:38 pmThe support and loyality by the elected officials showed that they will fight tooth and nail for the flag. To bad they don’t do that for troops or the katrina victims. A symbol is more important then a human life.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:54 amI am not surprised about 13 of the Democrat Senators who voted to ban burning the US flag! Sen Feinstein is a turncoat whose husband profits from the Iraq war > they purchased a 22 million dollar mansion with that blood money last year > she must be forced out of the Senate! Both Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida are goofy guys!
Sen. Dayton has been acting very strange lately > I think the NSA found out he is Gay or something, so he votes for GOP crap now! The other 9 of the 13 are just plain clueless!
The 14th Democrat who voted yes surprises me > Senator Harry Reid of Nevada has done a dumb thing in voting with the GOP goons on this attempted bogus amendment > he is not up for election this November, so maybe he has lost his mind now?!
June 28th, 2006 at 1:02 amObviously many the democrats are playing us too.
Obviously deals are done behind closed doors.
A yea here and a nay there. They probably change hands like currency.
Anyone who voted for this bill is no democrat, just remember that. No liberal would vote for such a unAmerican ammendment as this one.
There was no excuse for voting yea on this one.
June 28th, 2006 at 2:39 amSee:
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
“In an opinion by Justice Brennan, the Court began by concluding that “Johnson’s flag-burning was ‘conduct’ sufficiently imbued with elements of ‘communication’ to implicate the First Amendment.” (emphasis added) Stone, et. al., Constitutional Law, 2001, Aspen Publishers.
Now, unless you can find a Supreme Court decision which overturned Johnson, burning a flag is covered by the First Amendment.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:17 amComment by Dave — June 27, 2006
Must it be either Republican or Democrat?
Must it be someone who ran in the primary?
California has regulations for someone to run as a write-in….
June 28th, 2006 at 3:24 amBriseadh na Faire,
As I already said, you are taking the circumstances of that case out of context and applying them generally. It was not the fact that he was burning a flag, it was other things he was doing, his conduct, that got him off the hook. There is no reason to convict him of a crime that isn’t against the law, you know, burning a flag.
Yet if you hold to that Supreme Court decision as evidence that flag burning is covered under the First Amendment, then I will just have to say I disagree with the Court’s opinion at the time. Destruction of property is not “expression” as then one could easily make the case for all sorts of things to be the same thing.
There should be nothing you cannot express without having to destroy something.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:00 am#63
Everything they do, and I mean EVERYTHING, is based on one thing.
EMOTION.
This is why they are known as Reactionaries – they never take the time to think before the re-act.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:45 amThe support and loyality by the elected officials showed that they will fight tooth and nail for the flag. To bad they don’t do that for troops or the katrina victims. A symbol is more important then a human life.
Comment by Jackie — June 28, 2006 @ 12:54 am
Good point Jackie – too bad they won’t fight tooth and nail for upholding Constitution of the United States, the very one that they swore to uphold.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:49 amLet the right-wing witch hunt against “flag-hating traitors” begin. I’m convinced there will be a big right-wing blow-up over this. Grandiose ads on CNN and FNC blasting “terrorists who voted against this. Will they care that GOPers voted against this as well?
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
June 28th, 2006 at 8:41 amCheck out the BRAND NEW SSA: Blog
Only on SSA
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Briseadh na Faire,
No, it doesn’t. You’re taking a case with special circumstances and applying it broadly. Burning something is not free speech. If it was, then burning books would also be free speech. I don’t think anyone here would agree that burning books is a good thing.
Comment by Seixon — June 27, 2006 @ 7:34 pm
Books aren’t burned as an act of free speech. They are burned because some ignorant folks are afraid that some kid might read one and actually open their minds and consider other viewpoints. Oh the horror of it all. Many people are upset with the Harry Potter books, for example, because it celebrates witchcraft. God forbid that my daughter read one of the books and actually expand her mind and continue to develop her imagination, and learn to distinguish reality from fantasy or fiction.
Instead of letting children experience what this world has to offer — the good and the bad — and then discussing it with their parents, Mom and Dad want to shelter the kids until the last possible moment. Case in point: The father of 3 home-schooled kids a few months ago asked my wife how our 5-year-old liked Kindergarten (public school). She said fine, and that she was meeting lots of new friends, and then he said something about some of those kids could be dangerous! What an idiot.
Another example: my daughter’s favorite channel is Disney. She watches most of the shows. One of her friends from church was at the house a few months ago and the Disney show “Jake Long: American Dragon” was on. The little girl said “My mommy won’t let me watch that.” The little girl said she watches Kim Possible, so it couldn’t be because of the violence. The only other aspect of the show that might warp little Kayla’s mind would be the idea that a boy that can turn into a dragon. Mever mind that this is fiction.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:46 am#78 good point. Did they swear to uphold the flag?
June 28th, 2006 at 8:48 amPledging allegience to anything is idolitry and what does this flag stand for right now? The right to trash the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, invade sovereign nations without reason but on suspision?
Comment by Just plain mad — June 27, 2006 @ 7:48 pm
Don’t forget theft and murder. Our wonderful American flag was carried into battle by our troops as our young country killed countless Native Americans and stole their land.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:55 amI am not violating any laws, I am not hurting anyone, maligning anyone, taking anyones property, threatening anyone, or causing any monetary harm to any person, group or entity.
Comment by CLUBBER WORFEUS — June 27, 2006 @ 9:23 pm
But you are making Bill Frist cry. Can’t have that.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:02 amMever mind that this is fiction.
Comment by WC — June 28, 2006 @ 8:46 am
There was some nut in my former school district trying to get the Harry Potter series banned. Ofcourse, she’d never actually read one.
When we were kids my mother would let us watch the Friday Night Frights (Ted Turner’s original TNT network before he went global). She would say “This is just make-believe” (i.e. fiction, not real, etc.). We didn’t have nightmares. practice witchcraft, try to assemble dead body parts into a man, suck anyone’s blood, or worship the Devil. In fact, Halloween is a favorite time of year because it was a positive time in my childhood when fiction was simply a day to dress-up and eat candy… I’m glad it happened BEFORE the fake razor-in-apple nonsense that has since ruined Halloween for the younger generations. Now I’m waiting for someone to smear Santa Claus…
People have become afraid of their own shadows…. And little Kayla will no doubt be another closed-minded individual with no imagination and deep hate for anything different than her… Sad.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:03 am#84
Comment by unbelievable — June 28, 2006 @ 9:03 am
Yes…I remember you posting about that. Ever hear if she was successful?
I think Kayla will be OK…she’s not as sheltered as some kids I’ve seen…at least not now.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:47 am#76 Seixon
A Jewish tradition involves tearing clothes as an expression of great grief. Sinnead O’Conner tore a picture of the pope to express her opposition to Catholic politics. Alot of political speech can easily be seen as destructive in nature.
“There should be nothing you cannot express without having to destroy something.”: Your use of the word “should” indicates your attempt to destroy this viewpoint because of your opinion.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:53 amWhen is congress going to start working on some real problems that impact the American people?
June 28th, 2006 at 10:39 amBriseadh na Faire, AMEN! WHAT A WONDERFUL SUGGESTION! RIGHT ON! FASCIST BASTARDS WHO WANT TO DESTROY OUR PRECIOUS FREEDOMS, INCLUDING THE FREEDOM TO BURN THE FLAG UNDER PROTEST! Everyone of Senators who voted FOR ban needs to be run out of Senate, as THEY TOOK AN OATH to DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION NOT SHRED IT! Fascist, Unpatriotic bastards!
June 28th, 2006 at 11:42 amBriseadh na Faire, Right ON! Excellent suggestion! Fascists jerks who voted FOR the ban need to get their butts over to China and live! And get the HELL out of Senate! They took an oath to defend our Constitution and are traitors for NOT doing so and need to be run out of office on a rail!
June 28th, 2006 at 11:44 amBriseadh na Faire, Right ON! Excellent suggestion! Fascists jerks who voted FOR the ban need to get their butts over to China and live! And get the HELL out of Senate! They took an oath to defend our Constitution and are traitors for NOT doing so and need to be run out of office on a rail!
June 28th, 2006 at 11:44 amBriseadh na Faire, Right ON! Excellent suggestion! Fascists jerks who voted FOR the ban need to get their butts over to China and live! And get the HELL out of Senate! They took an oath to defend our Constitution and are traitors for NOT doing so and need to be run out of office on a rail!
June 28th, 2006 at 11:44 amMcConnell voted against? …very strange. I guess he’s soo far right , that he’s got a bit of Libertarian in him. hmm. … Comment by jimbobuddy
Jimbo, I think I read that McConnell voted against the resolution because he wants to pass federal legislation to accomplish the same thing instead … he apparently is optimistic that the current Supreme Court would uphold the constitutionality of a federal flag “desecration” ban. He very well might be correct in that belief.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:46 pmWC,
Books aren’t burned as an act of free speech. They are burned because some ignorant folks are afraid that some kid might read one and actually open their minds and consider other viewpoints.
See? Someone could say something similar about burning a flag. Destroying things is not an expression – it is destruction.
PLC,
A Jewish tradition involves tearing clothes as an expression of great grief. Sinnead O’Conner tore a picture of the pope to express her opposition to Catholic politics. Alot of political speech can easily be seen as destructive in nature.
You can rationalize destruction as “expression” all you want, but none of those things needed to involve destruction to express themselves. When you go to the point of destroying something, you are going beyond mere expression.
Your use of the word “should†indicates your attempt to destroy this viewpoint because of your opinion.
No, it’s because I don’t see the point of speaking in absolutes.
June 28th, 2006 at 4:04 pmSeixon:
It’s true that many things that can be expressed through the desecration of the flag could (and should) be expressed in different ways. However, how one decides to express their speech is a protected as the speech itself. The fact that it offends somebody else should have no bearing on these protections; in fact, speech is most in need of protection when it is farthest from the majority’s comfort zone. Destruction is a very negative act, but sometimes people want to express very negative ideas, and those negative ideas are as protected as positive ideas.
If a group of people sat in a public square and created a flag, wouldn’t you consider that speech? The destruction of that flag is afforded the same protection.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:38 pmHowever, how one decides to express their speech is a protected as the speech itself.
So to express my anger at someone, I could kill them? That would be protected as the speech itself? See, that’s where the logic on that ends. You end up trying to argue about where to draw the line, when there shouldn’t be any such discussion.
If a group of people sat in a public square and created a flag, wouldn’t you consider that speech? The destruction of that flag is afforded the same protection.
So creation is the same as destruction? Black is white? Up is down?
June 29th, 2006 at 7:51 amSeixon,
I’m done with you. You clearly have a poor grasp on first amendment law, and logic in general. Spend three years in law school and get back to me.
June 29th, 2006 at 8:53 amFlag burning is part of the freedom of speech. All US flags should have been burned in 2000 when Bush stole the election, in 2001 when the truth of 9/11 was covered up, in 2003 when Bush started a war with lies, and in 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006 when the right wing imposed legislation to benefit only the wealthiest and crack down on the powers and freedoms of the people.
I ****’n rest my case your honor. (In case you didn’t know, there’s also freedom of speech in here.)
June 29th, 2006 at 9:16 amGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 6:51 am