- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: We love the first amendment don't we folks?
Posted on 6/15/19 at 4:04 pm to ThePTExperience1969
Posted on 6/15/19 at 4:04 pm to ThePTExperience1969
quote:
the same interest supports a prohibition on the desecration of the American flag.*
Well that's just fricking stupid. Unless he's climbing a flag pole and burning the flag there's no connection. And even so burning some random flag does not to equate to spray painting a national monument
1
Posted on 6/15/19 at 4:13 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
The supreme court has ruled conduct can be legally interpreted as speech.
The Supreme Court also ruled segregation was constitutional
quote:
Theres a long list of court cases, but you can start with Tinker.
To which I agree with Justice Black's dissent
From his dissent in Mishkin v. New York
quote:
I think the Founders of our Nation in adopting the First Amendment meant precisely that the Federal Government should pass ‘no law’ regulating speech and press but should confine its legislation to the regulation of conduct. So too, that policy of the First Amendment made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, leaves the States vast power to regulate conduct but no power at all, in my judgment, to make the expression of views a crime.
It's true that's why we have laws prohibiting vandalism and tagging and shite like that, check mate
Posted on 6/15/19 at 4:14 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
I am not even sure if you think felons should have guns.
Irrelevant. What’s relevant is that many of you are all about some limits and restrictions on constitutional rights. Telling someone they must be registered, fingerprinted, and investigated in order to exercise one right is just fine, but telling someone they can’t burn the American flag is somehow unacceptable.
Posted on 6/15/19 at 4:16 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
the govt prohibits vandalism and tagging
quote:
Because that is doing harm to others' property
the 1st Amendment also doesn't protect fighting words, that doing harm to anyone's property?
Posted on 6/15/19 at 4:17 pm to ThePTExperience1969
quote:
true that's why we have laws prohibiting vandalism and tagging and shite like that, check mate
It doesn't count as vandalism if it's your own property you mental midget
Posted on 6/15/19 at 4:19 pm to dawgfan24348
quote:
Well that's just fricking stupid.
No it isn't, it's as if you haven't read the arguments I've presented about why the flag is so transcendental and why it pisses people off when people burn the flag in public
quote:
And even so burning some random flag does not to equate to spray painting a national monument
Both of which have zero value for 1st Amendment protection except for pissing people off and instigating a breach of the peace
Posted on 6/15/19 at 4:20 pm to troyt37
quote:
What’s relevant is that many of you are all about some limits and restrictions on constitutional rights.
Oh thats cute. You must think I am a liberal.
Posted on 6/15/19 at 4:22 pm to ThePTExperience1969
quote:
why the flag is so transcendental and why it pisses people off when people burn the flag in public
So because feelings get hurt it should be banned? Is that really the argument here?
Posted on 6/15/19 at 4:22 pm to dawgfan24348
quote:
It doesn't count as vandalism if it's your own property you mental midget
But it's conduct expressing my first amendment rights you mental midget
Posted on 6/15/19 at 4:23 pm to ThePTExperience1969
quote:
To which I agree with Justice Black's dissent
Quoting dissents from supreme court decisions is about as useful as bragging about everytime you got shot down with a girl.
quote:
It's true that's why we have laws prohibiting vandalism and tagging and shite like that, check mate
So if I own a flag and burn it, how is that vandalism?
Posted on 6/15/19 at 4:24 pm to ThePTExperience1969
How so?
Posted on 6/15/19 at 4:25 pm to dawgfan24348
bc im expressing my first amendment rights through conduct, you mental midget, you say conduct is protected by the 1st amendment with flag burning, let's see how consistent you are, bring it
Posted on 6/15/19 at 4:29 pm to ThePTExperience1969
You're flailing and failing all over the place
Equating vandalism with the 1st amendment
Equating vandalism with the 1st amendment
Posted on 6/15/19 at 4:30 pm to dawgfan24348
quote:
So because feelings get hurt it should be banned? Is that really the argument here?
quote:
Here it may equally well be said that the public burning of the American flag by Johnson was no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and at the same time it had a tendency to incite a breach of the peace
quote:
As with “fighting words,” so with flag burning, for purposes of the First Amendment: It is “no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and [is] of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from [it] is clearly outweighed” by the public interest in avoiding a probable breach of the peace....Thus, in no way can it be said that Texas is punishing him because his hearers—or any other group of people—were profoundly opposed to the message that he sought to convey. Such opposition is no proper basis for restricting speech or expression under the First Amendment. It was Johnson's use of this particular symbol, and not the idea that he sought to convey by it or by his many other expressions, for which he was punished.
Content-based restrictions automatically receive strict scrutiny review by the courts, but it wasn't the content of Johnson's speech it wasn't his point, it was his CONDUCT which the Founding Fathers and Justice Black hold the state can regulate as well as Chief Justice Warren
Posted on 6/15/19 at 4:31 pm to ThePTExperience1969
I'm saying burning ones own flag is protected by the first amendment as it falls under free speach.
Your only argument to this has been vandalism which makes no sense
Your only argument to this has been vandalism which makes no sense
Posted on 6/15/19 at 4:37 pm to dawgfan24348
quote:
I'm saying burning ones own flag is protected by the first amendment as it falls under free speach.
How about falsely screaming "fire!" in a movie theater? That protected? How about threatening a senator or someone in front of a mob? That protected? How about burning the "Don't Tread on Me" flag at a pro-military protest? That protected?
Posted on 6/15/19 at 4:40 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
You're flailing and failing all over the place
Equating vandalism with the 1st amendment
No I'm not I have my own independent argument and arguments that support it from respected legendary Supreme Court Justices, check mate
Posted on 6/15/19 at 4:40 pm to ThePTExperience1969
quote:
How about falsely screaming "fire!" in a movie theater? That protected? How about threatening a senator or someone in front of a mob? That protected? H
No because those actions have actual consequences that can cause harm to people
Burning flag causes no harm expect to pussies like you
Posted on 6/15/19 at 4:41 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Oh thats cute. You must think I am a liberal.
I don’t care if you’re an anarchist, or a totalitarian. If some limits on constitutional rights are acceptable, I don’t think preventing people from burning the flag would be the end of the world.
Posted on 6/15/19 at 4:46 pm to troyt37
Please tell me why it makes sense for the government to tell a person they can't burn the flag. It's a direct violation of the first amendment and just because you don't like the act doesn't mean it's ok for the government to outlaw it
This post was edited on 6/15/19 at 4:46 pm
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News