Should flag burning be illegal?

If I lived in NYC, I would be pissed about the drink thing.

I'm a civil libertarian, so trust me, I don't like the government getting involved in any of that stuff.

I vote against those measures whenever I can, and I vote for candidates that fight these kinds of laws.

 

It's no different from insulting things you'd get banned for writing in even the most permissive websites. Actions aren't speech. This is merely destruction of property owned symbolically by the American people. Anti-Americans have no claim to that.

Imagine at a Baptist convention, those whose opinions were voted down burned the Bible in protest. That's how stupid allowing flag-burning is. The only thing we should allow is to advocate that it should be legalized. Actually seeing it burned is too traumatic for those whose fathers are buried with the flag because of dying for their country, like my father was.

 

Well millions of people are now. I think that drink law takes effect this week and they can tell you what kind of food you can give your kids at school. Now if I was going to protest something, that is what I would protest, but I hear very little of it on these boards. I wonder why?

 

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

 

New York City bans super-sized sugary drinks - Los Angeles Times


articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/13/.../la-na-nn-soda-ban-20120913


Sep 13, 2012 – New York on Thursday became the first city in the nation to ban super-sized ... which will limit to 16 ounces the size of sodas and other sugary drinks sold in ... Assuming it is not blocked by legal challenges, it would take effect in six ... But the law, which Bloomberg proposed last May, also led to a broader ...


Goodbye, Big Soda: New York Becomes First City to Ban Large ...


healthland.time.com/.../goodbye-big-soda-new-york-becomes-first-ci...


Sep 13, 2012 – The ban on large drinks was championed by New York City Mayor ... a federal law that compelled all fast food retailers in the nation to do ... compared with 200 calories in a 16-oz. size; for people who drink a ... If legally challenged, the ban, which is expected to go into effect next March, could be delayed.

 

PJ Media » Wasted Food, Hungry Kids: Michelle Obama's Bill in Action


pjmedia.com/.../wasted-food-hungry-kids-michelle-obamas-bill-in-ac...


Sep 24, 2012 – Bands and other school groups can no longer sell candy bars as a fundraiser. .... If these schools confiscate a homemade lunch the parents will be charged for ... YOU have the responsibility to feed you kid, not the government. ... allowed to eat whatever they wanted for lunch; and even lived to tell about it.

 

Please show me where Michelle Obama passed anything...Thanks.

 

I'm a Voluntaryist, so basically anyone that believes they somehow have a right to tell me what to do with my body, my money or my property....pisses me off.

 

Just as long as flag burning does not incite violence in retaliation against it, it should be protected by our freedom of speech.

Also, people somehow think that being offended somehow makes the object of their offense indebted towards, them, somehow!!!
This is my response to everybody who feels that flag burning should be illegal.

Quoted straight from TJ

[video=youtube;zwoqzb5R6vw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwoqzb5R6vw[/video]

 

But you are--because that's where this road leads.

- - - Updated - - -

Because rational, reasonable people understand the difference.

 

So you believe it is the role of government to protect you from being infuriated? Honestly?

- - - Updated - - -

That was not the question. The question was if you would like to make it a crime to burn a Koran like you do for the flag.

 

But you've just defeated your own position. This is what happens when we allow government to act "for the good of X." Or when we ask government to "protect us" from some imagined slight. Your wanting the government to protect you from getting your feelings hurt is no different than some busybody who wants the government to protect you from too much soda. We are either free or we are not. And the choice is ours. I'll quote Jefferson again: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Meaning when somebody suggests that "there should be a law," there probably shouldn't. But we get the government we deserve and if you want the government nanny to protect your precious feelings, don't complain when they tell you can't supersize your slushie...

 

Passed anything? No, she jst gave orders to the schools and the schools are following it.

 

But you've just defeated your own position. This is what happens when we allow government to act "for the good of X." Or when we ask government to "protect us" from some imagined slight. Your wanting the government to protect you from getting your feelings hurt is no different than some busybody who wants the government to protect you from too much soda. We are either free or we are not. And the choice is ours. I'll quote Jefferson again: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Meaning when somebody suggests that "there should be a law," there probably shouldn't. But we get the government we deserve and if you want the government nanny to protect your precious feelings, don't complain when they tell you can't supersize your slushie...

 

Not saying your wrong. I just think I wouldn't allow anyone to destroy my country's flag. Maybe to a lot of you it's nothing but a piece of cloth. It's not to me. It means so much more to me.

 

You have the freedom of speech/the right to state your opinion that flag burners do not have their rights to freedom of speech

 

I never said they didn't have their rights to freedom of speech. As a matter of fact I have stated twice that they have the right to do it and I know I can't win this arguement. I just wouldn't allow it if I had the power to change it.

 

No i'm not? what are you basing it on? I'm gonna stop at some point on the road, I wont go very far on it to begin with, and I'll build a nice house there.

You don't have to go there, you're indirectly calling me irrational and unreasonable. stop that. and now, what is the difference if it's so easy to understand and explain?

 

Oh TJ is just an immature fat guy. ever seen how he debates with people (not directly but via a video exchange)? He just calls them idiots, 'pwns' them or whatever. Atleast, that was some years ago; I saw a debate where he debated live with one guy, he didn't behave bad then. he could work on that, being a more serious debater. I mean, you don't call people idiots and pwn them if you're serious.

And I could see that some law is in place that makes it illegal to do things (like burning a koran) if there embassies and such that are weak at that time. id est, for the sake of national security I can support a temporary ban on such things. I'm not doing it to appease the muslim mob, but they do damage and kill people, and that should be taken into account. Preferable though, we should strive to kill or imprison the violent muslims but when that's not an option we should avoid them getting riled up in the first place. the important thing is that innocent people don't die.

 

So let me get this straight Marine1...

According to you, the government is overstepping it's bounds by enacting laws intended to protect people from getting fat (i.e. protecting people from themselves). But the government wouldn't be overstepping it's bounds by enacting laws intended to protect people from losing their temper (i.e. protecting people from themselves).

Is that about it?

 

Neither does that stuff invalidate TJ's very intelligent arguments in that "everything is offensive" video. That video is basically his speech against the concept of political correctness. His weight has nothing to do with this argument, either. I don't remember TJ explicity mentioning flag burning in that video, but he would probably say "i don't care if that offends you, people have the right to freedom of speech", or something along those lines. I don't want to derail this thread by ranting about how much I hate political correctness, but I'll still mention TJ's video, but I'll try to keep the main issue about flag burning and freedom of speech.

There's a big difference between getting very offended by flag burning, and wanting to make it illegal.

 

It should at the very least be followed by a good old fashioned American ass whooping

 

it wasn't a critique of his video, which i can't see for some reason, most videos people post end up like big black boxes, it was a critique of him. and I hate PC as much as anybody, really do. it's a plague, very common in sweden I can tell you. And, i'm not for a ban on the grounds that if offends people, I'm for it because it's treason. kind of, the colliqual use of it anyways; nevermind the proper legal definition.

 

Who's PC? Also, flag burning is not really treason. If somebody screams in the middle of the street "i hate america", that's really not treason. The american flag is nothing more than a symbolic object of America, technically speaking. And, yes, you are for a ban on flag burning on the grounds that it offends people. Legally speaking, treason is more than just a symbolic representation of your hatred of any particular country.

I agree with that video totally. Every political correctness preaching liberal professor must see that video!!!

 

PC is political correctness, really needs an abbrevation if you ask me.

I'm not for banning it because of people's feelings, because then I'd want to burn pissing on crosses too, which I don't. Why? because a cross represents christianity, a flag represents the nation. Not everyone is part of christianity, but everyone is part of the nation. And if they're not, if they don't see themselves as part of the nation, then they should realise that this is that nation's land and you shouldn't (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) up against them. I mean if you're born here buit don't like the nation, you should consider moving, and if you're a guest worker you're an arse of an employee and should go elsewhere.