|
Where did ya go? Same school as Faeflora?
|
Originally Posted by DNMakinson
(Post 1244625)
But, I have free speech, so I can spell |
Originally Posted by DNMakinson
(Post 1243744)
Flag burning is an act of drama, not speaking. Speaking would be, "I think this country's leadership is corrupt."
On July 8, 1776, a group of Pennsylvania militiamen stormed into the state supreme court chamber of the Pennsylvania State House, which we today know as Independence Hall, said building having also housed the Second Continental Congress and served as the birthplace of both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Said militiamen tore down a large wooden carving of the Coat of Arms of King George III, which until that point had hung prominently at the center of the forward wall of the room, directly above the bench. They dragged the carving out into the street where it was beaten to splinters and then set ablaze. Would you argue that this act, while violent and dramatic, was not a form of political speech? Did it not symbolize the desire of these men to throw off the shackles of the British monarch and revolt in order to gain their independence? |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1244699)
Are you familiar with the old adage that "Actions speak louder than words?"
On July 8, 1776, a group of Pennsylvania militiamen stormed into the state supreme court chamber of the Pennsylvania State House, which we today know as Independence Hall, said building having also housed the Second Continental Congress and served as the birthplace of both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Said militiamen tore down a large wooden carving of the Coat of Arms of King George III, which until that point had hung prominently at the center of the forward wall of the room, directly above the bench. They dragged the carving out into the street where it was beaten to splinters and then set ablaze. Would you argue that this act, while violent and dramatic, was not a form of political speech? Did it not symbolize the desire of these men to throw off the shackles of the British monarch and revolt in order to gain their independence? However, we can all speak in the public square. It was indeed an act of drama, and it was conveying a strong message. It was, nontheless, more than speech, it was also an act of vandalism that I do not believe should be protected under the 1st amendment. |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by DNMakinson
(Post 1244736)
It was indeed an act of drama, and it was conveying a strong message. It was, nontheless, more than speech, it was also an act of vandalism that I do not believe should be protected under the 1st amendment.
The key idea, however, was to ascertain whether, in addition to constituting vandalism, said act also constituted symbolic political speech, in the same way that burning an effigy which depicts a political leader might as well. https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1435604047 If so, then it is also possible for the burning of a flag to similarly constitute political speech, and if the flag in question is the personal property of the individual destroying it, then no related property-crime exists. |
I can grant you that it would be symbolic free speech. Should symbolic speech be protected, or just real speech? Also, it is not just political speech that is protected.
Additionally, would laws regarding prescribed care of the flag be violations of the First Amendment? There are laws that say I cannot make sexual inuendos to a co-worker that has informed me that such are offensive. |
Yes symbolic speech should be protected. I get the distinction you're trying to make, but it's ultimately a futile one.
Then again, it also depends on what dictionary you want to use: the faculty or power of speaking; oral communication; ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gesture |
|
Originally Posted by DNMakinson
(Post 1244758)
I can grant you that it would be symbolic free speech. Should symbolic speech be protected, or just real speech?
In Smith v. Goguen (1974), the court stated: Although neither written nor spoken, an act may be sufficiently communicative to invoke the protection of the First Amendment, and may not be forbidden by law except when incidental to preventing unprotected conduct or unless the communication is itself among those that fall outside the protection of the First Amendment.
Originally Posted by DNMakinson
(Post 1244758)
Also, it is not just political speech that is protected.
Originally Posted by DNMakinson
(Post 1244758)
Additionally, would laws regarding prescribed care of the flag be violations of the First Amendment?
Originally Posted by DNMakinson
(Post 1244758)
There are laws that say I cannot make sexual inuendos to a co-worker that has informed me that such are offensive.
|
I know the SCoUS has ruled that it is OK to desecrate the flag, but I personally do not agree with their decision.
I had not realized that they had prohibited states from passing laws honoring it, but that is not the same as preventing desecration, so I would agree with that. As Z31 said, my quest is likely futile, given that 1974 was a long time ago. |
|
1 Attachment(s)
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1246079)
|
Killing the U.S. now:
Men not at work | Power Line Killing the U.S. soon: Ann Coulter - July 1, 2015 - MEDIA HIDE FACTS, CALL EVERYONE ELSE A LIAR Look up the 10 most wanted list in your nearest big city. Is that list representative of the makeup of the country, or it's neighbors? |
Originally Posted by cordycord
(Post 1246130)
Killing the U.S. soon:
Ann Coulter - July 1, 2015 - MEDIA HIDE FACTS, CALL EVERYONE ELSE A LIAR Look up the 10 most wanted list in your nearest big city. Is that list representative of the makeup of the country, or it's neighbors? After getting escorted out of the store by security, the protesters reconvened outside the entrance, shouting “Shame on you!” to those who walked out holding a copy of Coulter’s book. At one point, the group ripped up a copy of the book, littering the space outside the store with paper. “Don’t have kids! Don’t have kids!” one of the protesters screamed at an older couple exiting the store. “You have to understand,” Coulter told Breitbart News, “screaming and defacing things is how Latin Americans express disagreement. At least as long as they were destroying books and screaming in a book store, they weren’t molesting any 4-year-olds.” ... “Immigration is a government policy like any other and it ought to be used to benefit the people already living here. That includes recent immigrants,” Coulter said. “There should not be any criminals coming in.” |
1 Attachment(s)
|
While I understand that they have neither the desire nor the experience in matters of foreign policy and diplomacy to lead a nation, I think I'd still vote for Penn & Teller in 2016.
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1246516)
While I understand that they have neither the desire nor the experience in matters of foreign policy and diplomacy to lead a nation, I think I'd still vote for Penn & Teller in 2016.
penn n teller burn flag wmv - YouTube |
this is exactly why a jurt trial should scare you:
Juror discusses trespassing trial | News - Home VIDEO: One of the jurors who returned a guilty verdict against Michale Hoffman who was arrested for trespassing at the airport, spoke to News4Jax following the one year probation sentencing. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1247912)
This is also why if I was ever on trial, I'd make sure to that stating the law was part of the jury instructions.
In every state that I'm aware of, stating the law is always part of the judge's instructions to the jury prior to releasing them to deliberation. If the judge fails to instruct the jury on the relevant points of law, then this may be used as grounds for the defense to motion for a mistrial, or to be used at appeal. In fact, faulty jury instructions are one of the more commonly cited issues in the overturning of criminal convictions. Further reading: http://law-journals-books.vlex.com/v...nsion-53091759 http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/c...ext=fss_papers https://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN...256f820075d2bc |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:00 AM. |
|
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands