triple88a

iTrader: (2)

Where did ya go? Same school as Faeflora?

z31maniac

Of course. The great thing is people also have to live with the consequences of their free speech.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

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?

DNMakinson

iTrader: (3)

Joe, I walk cautiously debating with you, as your breadth of knowledge and your intellect; I am no match for; not to mention your prowess with prose.

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.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

In this case, I'd certainly agree that it was an act of vandalism, as it involved the destruction of property not owned by the individuals in question. And, of course, under British colonial rule there existed no first 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.



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.

DNMakinson

iTrader: (3)

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.

z31maniac

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

triple88a

iTrader: (2)

Cops livid over proposed ?police reform? measures | New York Post

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

The first amendment protection of free speech has, in general, tended to be interpreted as providing for freedom of expression, no matter what form that expression takes. This encompasses creative expression (works of art and music, playwriting, etc) in addition to oratory or printed expression.

In Smith v. Goguen (1974), the court stated:
True. The distinction is merely that political speech has historically enjoyed an even greater level of constitutional protection than non-political speech (eg: criticism of political officers and candidates for political office are afforded less protection from libel than private citizens), and the issue at hand in matters concerning desecration of the flag tend to involve political speech, and more specifically, the separately protected petitioning of the government for a redress of grievances.



Also in Smith v. Goguen, the court stated that "Neither the United States nor any State may require any individual to salute or express favorable attitudes toward the flag."




Said laws treat such behavior as a form of assault, and are therefore in the same class as laws which prohibit me from murdering people who are a different color from me as a way of freely expressing my views on ethnic separatism. Or, put another way, my rights (to free expression) end where yours (to life and liberty) begin.

DNMakinson

iTrader: (3)

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.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

America?s politicians take courageous, bipartisan stand against peas in guacamole - The Washington Post

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

take your flag and shove it.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

I identify with the form of expression shown by the non-grungy guy. I'd like to think he's a veteran who has some deeds that back up his ensemble performance.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

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?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

viperormiata

iTrader: (24)

A glimpse:

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

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.

olderguy

iTrader: (19)

Thank You. I have spread it around.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

this is exactly why a jurt trial should scare you:

Juror discusses trespassing trial | News - Home

This juror is a complete moron, he couldn't even support why he gave a guilty verdict to someone "trespassing" on public property. 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.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Have you ever attended a criminal trial, either as a juror or an observer?

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