posted
I'm sorry, Pixiest, but I can't take any position you espouse seriously when you make up stupid crap like that. I was going to be nice about your drawing style, but since you seem to feel that insulting an entire people group is okie dokie, I'm dropping the act. You draw like a 6th grader. Your sense of proportion and color are terrible. Whatever political statement you may have been trying to convey is lost in the camouflage (there's a French word I'm sure you've used on many occassions) of your complete lack of natural talent.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if someone has a pair of swim trunks with the flag on it and they burn them, will they get arrested?
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You get lots of enjoyment out of being so acerbic, don't you, Primal Curve? I mean, it's not like Pixiest was really imposing on you by letting your inner Simon out, was she?
And I'm not sure you understood what point she was trying to make well enough to feel she was insulting the people you think she was-certainly she called the vote stupid.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm fairly conservative. Not to mention the fact that I think flag burning is inappropriae. But, I would be embarrassed if there was an anti-flag burning amemndment.
It's silly and petty.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't burning a flag the only way to properly dispose of it? If this amendment passes, will stuffing the post-July 4th mini American flags into trash cans with dirty diapers and stale pizza be the acceptable alternative?
quote: So if someone has a pair of swim trunks with the flag on it and they burn them, will they get arrested?
This gets to my problem with the amendment. How are they going to prosecute people who burn a flag? With fines? Prison time? Dismemberment?
Besides, if someone really wanted to desecrate a flag, they could find other ways than burning. My evil mastermind is coming up with a couple right now. Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The amendment empowers Congress to prohibit "flag desecration." This means proper burning would not be affected, and other means of desecrating will be prohibitible.
Imagine the legal squabbling over "flag" and "desecration."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Methinks the SC might be awfully tempted to rule that any form of political speech could not, by nature, be desecration . . .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And I'm not sure you understood what point she was trying to make well enough to feel she was insulting the people you think she was-certainly she called the vote stupid.
posted
Technically, she's not burning any country's flag. If it were France's flag, the blue would be on the hoist side of the flag. There are no known countries with a tri-color; red, white and blue flag with red on the hoist side. I think, in this case, I'll chalk it up to extreme cultural illiteracy on Pixiest's part.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
v 1: violate the sacred character of a place or language; "desecrate a cemetary"; "violate the sanctity of the church"; "profane the name of God" [syn: profane, outrage, violate] 2: remove the consecration from a person or an object [syn: deconsecrate] [ant: consecrate]
This amendment would officially elevate the flag to sacred status. I don't know who should be more offended, those religious, or those areligious.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly, Glenn. It's a ridiculous idea in and of itself, without bringing in free speech.
Add free speech, and the argument is compelling. Although I think regulations on open fires which are enforced in an even-handed fashion should be able to legally prevent flag burning as a safety regulation. But such a regulation would have to be viewpoint neutral.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I like is how we're curtailing the rights of people to protect the rights of objects.
-o-
quote:Although I think regulations on open fires which are enforced in an even-handed fashion should be able to legally prevent flag burning as a safety regulation.
I don't see how this would be true. What if one burns a carefully folded flag in a barbecue?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If barbecues are allowed in that location, then it couldn't be banned. If barbecues aren't allowed, then it shouldn't be allowed because someone intends the act to be expressive.
If someone could legally burn a blank piece of cloth in that location and in the same manner, then they should be allowed to burn a flag.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee: I strongly disagree. Expressive (especially politically expressive) activities should enjoy further protection than non-expressive activities, just as many religious activities enjoy greater protection than otherwise identical non-religious activities (peyote anyone?).
If someone could burn a flag there without endangering anybody or having a danger to start a fire, even if there's a general ban on burning things except in approved locations, they should be able to burn a flag in political protest there.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or like schools can disallow modifications to uniforms but be forced to allow politically expressive armbands and similar.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: just as many religious activities enjoy greater protection than otherwise identical non-religious activities (peyote anyone?)
Funny you should say that, since peyote use in religious ceremonies does NOT enjoy constitutional protection.
quote:If someone could burn a flag there without endangering anybody or having a danger to start a fire
I would argue that this almost can't exist in a public space, especially with people around angry enough to burn the flag. A burning piece of cloth, usually soaked with a flammable liquid, has at minimum a pretty serious chance of blowing into someone.
As to danger of starting a fire, who's best qualified to decide that? A judge or a fire marshall?
There is a standard delineation between traditional means of communication (leafletting, holding signs, picketing, soapboxing, etc.) and other activities intended to be permissive. The former may not be restricted without a compelling state interest. The latter may not be restricted in a viewpoint discriminatory or non-content-neutral fashion.
Burning anything falls into the second category pretty easily.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting, I wasn't aware of that wrt peyote.
There are people who burn the flag when they're not in any sort of violent anger, just as there are those who calmly handcuff themselves to fences (not saying that is or should be legal, but that it happens).
I'd be perfectly fine with the fire marshal performing a specific assessment of the situation and the judge using that to determine whether the burning of the flag violated criminal codes .
I just think that its too easy for the government to infringe on expressive rights given the ability to make such general bans which encroach on expression.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an aspirational goal, the government should allow it to the greates extent possible. But, whereas I think banning a person from handing out leaflets in a park open to the public is as close to never acceptable as any use of the word "neve" I can think of, the banning of open flames is necessary in enough situations that the burden of showing the safety in the face of a general ban should be on the people wishing to conduct the burning, not the government.
Judicial examination on a rational basis of the need for the ban and on a strict scrutiny standard with respect to sham justifications or discriminatory application is perfectly acceptable. But a specific showing of danger in the instance should not be necessary for defending a general, evenly applied rule.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But, whereas I think banning a person from handing out leaflets in a park open to the public is as close to never acceptable as any use of the word "neve" I can think of
I don't know, I find Neve Campbell pretty unacceptable
[hands Dagonee a free coupon to make fun of my next typo]
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
