Can flag stomping constitute incitement to violence?

Snobbish as that sounds. You are wrong. Rational adults with a spine will not stand pat and allow it in their presence.

 

Would a crowd of heavily armed Black Panthers in an open-carry state like Texas standing silently across the street from, say, Houston PD Headquarters on Travis Street be an incitement to violence? Keep in mind, they have done nothing but exercise their right to peacefully assemble and openly carry firearms according to Texas law...

- - - Updated - - -

Then those "rational adults" are merely paying lip service to the First Amendment, and have failed the practical test.

 

Maybe we should to a point, not for calling someone an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) but for screaming in a woman's face she is a cum guzzling slut, they are attempting to get a reaction and they shouldn't feel that their actions are without consequences. People should be held responsible for their own actions, the agitators and the people who react with violence both created an unnecessary situation that could have escalated into a riot or a situation where innocent people could be harmed. JMHO.

 

And they should understand that their actions have consequences. They are not innocents just because they have a right to speak their mind. Why protect such blatant irresponsibility?

 

Because that is what the 1st amendment protects, peoples right to be insensitive or outright mean towards others. Once it gets physical that protection is over though.

 

harassment is a crime, so there is a line you can't cross... but that would not justify violence other then trying to get them away, once away, call the cops

.

.

 

Girls don't go out with (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) that won't stick up got them. What is wrong with you.

 

what era are you living in, women want a co-provider, not one with a criminal record for assaulting every man that looks at them or their past girlfriends funny

get in their face and tell them to knock it off, don't assault them

it's gonna be hard to explain to future employers why you have a criminal record for assault.... it's just not worth it

.

 

Newp. Not snobbish in the least. What a rational adult would do is turn and walk away if he/she didn't agree with it. "Not allowing it" in their presence is just an admission that that person hates protected speech and actually has no spine.

Grownups know how to react to things that they don't like but that don't actually hurt them.

 

Nope, sometimes lessons need to be taught. mommy and daddy didn't do it for them, but I am willing surrogate.

 

Didn't know this was about "what ifs"? If the Panthers decided to jock up and stand across from the cop shop in full gear, good for them.
Make one threatening move towards the PD, and I would expect everyone to be mowed down with extreme prejudice.

 

LOL! So you admit you're in no control of your emotions and you despise the rule of law.

Thanks for coming clean about that, and about hating the first Amendment.

 

Yea but most Americans are not (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*), act like a jerk sometimes ya get punched in the mouth. Lesson learned. He who acts like a jerk and never gets punched in the mouth may never learn. Hence , old liberal lefties.

 

Absolutely.

BLM is the new KKK.

 

and a jerk is likely to call the cops and then they woudl learn violence is not the answer, course then it's too late as now they have to explain why they have an assault on their record to all future employers

 

Im not saying it should be legal either, but some circumstances just saying don't act like a victim when your whole purpose of your action is to incite anger in people. Every walk of life has those unwritten rules, and there are consequences when you try to (*)(*)(*)(*) people off.

Personally I don't see why burning a cross can be brought up on charges of a hate crime, yet burning a flag is all fine and dandy even though it can incite the same feelings as cross burnings.

Just hypocrisy is all.

 

That's absolutely fair. Mah bahd.

 

Anything might constitute an "incitement to violence" for someone, but it is unlawful for anyone to resort to violence against folks exercising free speech, however repugnant.

Succumbing to provocation is surrender.

 

Making a rational, cogent point based in reality called for you.

Didn't leave any message.

 

Seriously, you do not know the significance of the gold fringed flag, the "union jack". Really, "No one knows". Of course I do not prefer that.

It signifies English/Roman control. It is a military flag. Seen in a court, it tells you that you really are not under the 1787 constitution. Do not believe the BS about it meaning nothing. Just try getting one out of the court room for an idea of how important it is.



Which Flag?

Which flag are soldiers dying for?

 

Sometimes the time is worth the crime.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrz_qowIIbQ

 

. the constitutional test is a little more complicated than just deciding if an act of political speech is likely to incite some violence here and there. . Here is a great resource on criminal incitement http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incitement.htm

 

not over something like that, unless your rich and do not need to worry about future employment

 

Well in my opinion if you let someone scream in your wife's face and don't knock the jerk out. Your a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*). And don't worry, my boss is a good American. He knows what I would do in such a situation and would not have a problem.