PDA

View Full Version : Flag burning question...



garhkal
08-01-2015, 04:14 AM
OK, so its been a while since the Scotus ruled that Burning, urinating, stomping etc on the US flag is protected speech as its "freedom of expression"..

BUT i wonder, would the court rule the same way if someone did exactly the same to the LGBT rainbow flag, or would they get arrested for hate speech?

MikeKerriii
08-01-2015, 04:36 AM
OK, so its been a while since the Scotus ruled that Burning, urinating, stomping etc on the US flag is protected speech as its "freedom of expression"..

BUT i wonder, would the court rule the same way if someone did exactly the same to the LGBT rainbow flag, or would they get arrested for hate speech?

Read,this very very carefully

You can not be arrested for hate speech in the United States, unless you are a calling for immediate and specific violence. The same Constitution that allows someone to step on the US flag would also protect you when you stepped on any other flag

You can hate as loudly and as publicly as you want, it is not a crime and in the US at least can't be made a crime


Where did you get the silly Idea that hate speak was something you could be arrested for? Railing against non-existent laws doesn't make much sense.

TJMAC77SP
08-01-2015, 02:01 PM
Read,this very very carefully

You can not be arrested for hate speech in the United States, unless you are a calling for immediate and specific violence. The same Constitution that allows someone to step on the US flag would also protect you when you stepped on any other flag

You can hate as loudly and as publicly as you want, it is not a crime and in the US at least can't be made a crime


Where did you get the silly Idea that hate speak was something you could be arrested for? Railing against non-existent laws doesn't make much sense.

Be very careful with what you write. Burning an LGBT (rainbow) flag can get you charged with a hate crime. At least get the 'hate crime' aggravating charge added. This is probably what garkhal read somewhere.

http://www.ketv.com/news/gay-flag-burning-suspect-released-on-own-recognizance/31607078

MikeKerriii
08-01-2015, 02:17 PM
Be very careful with what you write. Burning an LGBT (rainbow) flag can get you charged with a hate crime. At least get the 'hate crime' aggravating charge added. This is probably what garkhal read somewhere.

http://www.ketv.com/news/gay-flag-burning-suspect-released-on-own-recognizance/31607078

That is a pathetic attempt at a strawman

That idiot burned someone else's flag on someone else's property, that is simply called arson. He committed a felony, the hate crime was simply an add-on to that.

TJMAC77SP
08-01-2015, 04:39 PM
That is a pathetic attempt at a strawman

That idiot burned someone else's flag on someone else's property, that is simply called arson. He committed a felony, the hate crime was simply an add-on to that.


I spelled that out clearly.

"........At least get the 'hate crime' aggravating charge added. This is probably what garkhal read somewhere............."


As usual the absolute nature of your wording got you into a corner. I merely pointed out that it isn't as simple as you stated. And since he was charged with a hate crime it isn't simply called arson (again with poor wording choices).

BTW: In addition to being an 'idiot' is he also a 'scumbag'?

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-01-2015, 07:23 PM
OK, so its been a while since the Scotus ruled that Burning, urinating, stomping etc on the US flag is protected speech as its "freedom of expression"..

BUT i wonder, would the court rule the same way if someone did exactly the same to the LGBT rainbow flag, or would they get arrested for hate speech?

If you burn a US or Israeli flag, then it's not a hate crime, even if you hate those it represents... Americans or JEWs. If you burn an LGBT, NAMBLA, Mexican or ISIS flag, then you might be arrested for a hate crime. This is the vision of progressives.

MikeKerriii
08-02-2015, 05:52 PM
I spelled that out clearly.

"........At least get the 'hate crime' aggravating charge added. This is probably what garkhal read somewhere............."


As usual the absolute nature of your wording got you into a corner. I merely pointed out that it isn't as simple as you stated. And since he was charged with a hate crime it isn't simply called arson (again with poor wording choices).

BTW: In addition to being an 'idiot' is he also a 'scumbag'?
hew was not charger with hate speech, he was tried for arson motivated by hate, those are quite different things.

MikeKerriii
08-02-2015, 05:55 PM
If you burn a US or Israeli flag, then it's not a hate crime, even if you hate those it represents... Americans or JEWs. If you burn an LGBT, NAMBLA, Mexican or ISIS flag, then you might be arrested

No that is simply you displaying a total ignorance about how the US Constitution and hate crime laws work. You can burn any flag for any reason even stating that reason openly. You just can't do so when burning any flag would be a crime.

Why are you railing against laws that exist only in your imagination? There are no laws against "hate speech' in the US.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-02-2015, 06:38 PM
No that is simply you displaying a total ignorance about how the US Constitution and hate crime laws work. You can burn any flag for any reason even stating that reason openly. You just can't do so when burning any flag would be a crime.

Why are you railing against laws that exist only in your imagination? There are no laws against "hate speech' in the US.

You took me a little too seriously. That said, I'm quite convinced that if given a choice, most liberals would gladly vote to outlaw hate speech, as defined by them of course. I also believe that if given a choice, most liberals would gladly dissolve the Congress and SCOTUS in favor of Executive supreme rule, with Obama in office.

Mjölnir
08-02-2015, 07:05 PM
You took me a little too seriously. That said, I'm quite convinced that if given a choice, most liberals would gladly vote to outlaw hate speech, as defined by them of course. I also believe that if given a choice, most liberals would gladly dissolve the Congress and SCOTUS in favor of Executive supreme rule, with Obama in office.

I agree with you, except that many conservatives would like to also outlaw some speech they don't like. There are extremes on both sides who would wish to dictate what people say / how they express themselves.

The freedom of speech isn't intended to protect the opinion of the majority.

TJMAC77SP
08-02-2015, 08:04 PM
hew was not charger with hate speech, he was tried for arson motivated by hate, those are quite different things.

All so-called hate crimes are other crimes with an aggravating factor of being motivated by hate, thus a hate crime. It is not against the law to actually hate anyone or group.

MikeKerriii
08-02-2015, 09:12 PM
All so-called hate crimes are other crimes with an aggravating factor of being motivated by hate, thus a hate crime. It is not against the law to actually hate anyone or group.

Agreed, but some people persist in thinking that you can be arrested for "hate speech." In many countries that can happen in the US it can not.

MikeKerriii
08-02-2015, 09:15 PM
You took me a little too seriously. That said, I'm quite convinced that if given a choice, most liberals would gladly vote to outlaw hate speech, as defined by them of course. I also believe that if given a choice, most liberals would gladly dissolve the Congress and SCOTUS in favor of Executive supreme rule, with Obama in office.

Most nutcases on both the left and right would be for banning some speech. That is an approach that comes with the total disregard for rights that comes from extremism on either side

TJMAC77SP
08-02-2015, 09:35 PM
Agreed, but some people persist in thinking that you can be arrested for "hate speech." In many countries that can happen in the US it can not.

True but I am not one of them and you and I have been engaged in this discussion

MikeKerriii
08-03-2015, 02:21 AM
True but I am not one of them and you and I have been engaged in this discussion
I didn't say you were, but the OP was definitely one of those people when he started the thread.

TJMAC77SP
08-03-2015, 02:32 AM
I didn't say you were, but the OP was definitely one of those people when he started the thread.

No, you dismissed my accurate posting as "a pathetic attempt at a strawman"

I also pointed out the probable source for Garkhal's position but evidently that was part of the same 'strawman'

MikeKerriii
08-03-2015, 03:42 AM
No, you dismissed my accurate posting as "a pathetic attempt at a strawman"

I also pointed out the probable source for Garkhal's position but evidently that was part of the same 'strawman'

Because you were bringing in a unrelated subject to justify something, I don't think Garald is dumb, and to confuse an arson case and a free speech case would require a lot of dumb.

garhkal
08-03-2015, 05:11 AM
Be very careful with what you write. Burning an LGBT (rainbow) flag can get you charged with a hate crime. At least get the 'hate crime' aggravating charge added. This is probably what garkhal read somewhere.

http://www.ketv.com/news/gay-flag-burning-suspect-released-on-own-recognizance/31607078

While it wasn't that article, it was related to something someone said at Gencon Wednesday night..
We were talking politics (along with 6 other people at the smoke pit) and the subject came up about the Gay pride flag, and several of those out there (inc myself) are getting tired of seeing it all over the place, especially after Reno had it flying over the CITY council building in place of the US flag (against the law i might add) and another city (Santa Ana in CA) is looking to put the GPF up permanently over THEIR city council building but are holding a council meeting open to the public before doing so.

That gal mentioned that "As a LV native, it sickened her to her stomach seeing her brother (who lives in Reno) standing BY what the Reno council did, and wondered if she would have been in legal trouble if she videoed herself burning the GPF and sent it to her brother".

One of the others on the pit mentioned "well since the SCOTUS has already ruled that burning the US flag is protected speech, he doesn't see how they COULDN'T rule the same way for the GPF", but others spoke up saying "well since we have spent the past 3-4 years hearing of people getting charged with refusing to serve a gay wedding (though they would be willing to bake the cake itself) they felt that with how much judges seem to rule in the LGBT communities favor, they WOULD regard it as hate speech..


I agree with you, except that many conservatives would like to also outlaw some speech they don't like. There are extremes on both sides who would wish to dictate what people say / how they express themselves.

The freedom of speech isn't intended to protect the opinion of the majority.

Agreed. BUT nor should it work to silence the majority just cause some in the minority get offended..
Which is how it seems to be used these days.

TJMAC77SP
08-03-2015, 12:51 PM
Because you were bringing in a unrelated subject to justify something, I don't think Garald is dumb, and to confuse an arson case and a free speech case would require a lot of dumb.

It was hardly unrelated as the person did indeed incur a hate crime charge for burning an LGBT flag. Perhaps if Garkhal had worded his question differently. It was just a question btw and hardly qualifies as 'railing'.

In a situation such as the one where the man got arrested, if the flag he burned was a US flag (and his stance was anti-US) do you think he would have still faced a hate-crime charge along with the arson etc charges?

MikeKerriii
08-03-2015, 04:09 PM
It was hardly unrelated as the person did indeed incur a hate crime charge for burning an LGBT flag. Perhaps if Garkhal had worded his question differently. It was just a question btw and hardly qualifies as 'railing'.

In a situation such as the one where the man got arrested, if the flag he burned was a US flag (and his stance was anti-US) do you think he would have still faced a hate-crime charge along with the arson etc charges?

Since the hate would have been directed at a nation not a group he would not have had the hate crimes tag thrown on.

MikeKerriii
08-03-2015, 04:13 PM
While it wasn't that article, it was related to something someone said at Gencon Wednesday night..
We were talking politics (along with 6 other people at the smoke pit) and the subject came up about the Gay pride flag, and several of those out there (inc myself) are getting tired of seeing it all over the place, especially after Reno had it flying over the CITY council building in place of the US flag (against the law i might add) and another city (Santa Ana in CA) is looking to put the GPF up permanently over THEIR city council building but are holding a council meeting open to the public before doing so.

That gal mentioned that "As a LV native, it sickened her to her stomach seeing her brother (who lives in Reno) standing BY what the Reno council did, and wondered if she would have been in legal trouble if she videoed herself burning the GPF and sent it to her brother".

One of the others on the pit mentioned "well since the SCOTUS has already ruled that burning the US flag is protected speech, he doesn't see how they COULDN'T rule the same way for the GPF", but others spoke up saying "well since we have spent the past 3-4 years hearing of people getting charged with refusing to serve a gay wedding (though they would be willing to bake the cake itself) they felt that with how much judges seem to rule in the LGBT communities favor, they WOULD regard it as hate speech.. So your question was based on a opinion you heard not anything in the law or the news?




Agreed. BUT nor should it work to silence the majority just cause some in the minority get offended..
Which is how it seems to be used these days. When has the majority been silenced LEGALLY to stop then from offending a minority? Is that a hypothetical also?

garhkal
08-03-2015, 06:08 PM
Since the hate would have been directed at a nation not a group he would not have had the hate crimes tag thrown on.

OK.. So let's change it up. Rather than the US flag, its say the flag of the US Marines, or the Black panther group. Those are other groups as well (as the LGBT).. So would burning it (not on someone else's property) be considered a hate crime?
SHOULD it be??


So your question was based on a opinion you heard not anything in the law or the news?

Yes. Just like some of the other questions i have posted over the many years here. Not everthing i ask about comes as a result of reading a website/news site or listening to the news channel. Some just come about cause of what another person says, spurs my mind into thinking..


When has the majority been silenced LEGALLY to stop then from offending a minority? Is that a hypothetical also?

How's about
Can't use the N word. Can't use the retard word, and several others..

MikeKerriii
08-03-2015, 06:57 PM
OK.. So let's change it up. Rather than the US flag, its say the flag of the US Marines, or the Black panther group. Those are other groups as well (as the LGBT).. So would burning it (not on someone else's property) be considered a hate crime?
SHOULD it be?? Burning a flag where any flag is legal allowed to be burnt allowed to be burnt. would not be a hate crime. To be a hate crime something FIRST has to be a crime. A crime can't be ha hate crime unless it is first a crime..




Yes. Just like some of the other questions i have posted over the many years here. Not everthing i ask about comes as a result of reading a website/news site or listening to the news channel. Some just come about cause of what another person says, spurs my mind into thinking.. Sorry they tend to come off as if you were basing them on facts




How's about
Can't use the N word. Can't use the retard word, and several others.. LEGALLY you can use those words as often as you wish, there will be SOCIAL consequences for doing so. Being prosecuted for commuting a crime and being called out for being rude are two completely separate things. You have freedom from legal consequences of your speech you don't have any freedom for others responding with their own freedom of speech.

TJMAC77SP
08-04-2015, 03:29 AM
Since the hate would have been directed at a nation not a group he would not have had the hate crimes tag thrown on.

Now we have a strawman.

Federal law (103-322A,) defines hate crime as:

"a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."

I think national origin would fit the definition.

BTW, I agree that a hate crime more than likely would not be included in the charges but not for the reason you so desperately need to be true.

Bos Mutus
08-04-2015, 03:54 AM
Now we have a strawman.

Federal law (103-322A,) defines hate crime as:

"a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."

I think national origin would fit the definition.

BTW, I agree that a hate crime more than likely would not be included in the charges but not for the reason you so desperately need to be true.



Taking that....it would seem to me that burning an LGBT flag in a general protest would be protected...but, burning it on a gay couples front lawn, maybe not as it could imply a threat/intimidation to that specific couple...as in the previous case you cited.


im just guessing

Mjölnir
08-04-2015, 12:12 PM
Taking that....it would seem to me that burning an LGBT flag in a general protest would be protected...but, burning it on a gay couples front lawn, maybe not as it could imply a threat/intimidation to that specific couple...as in the previous case you cited.


im just guessing

Sounds logical. Cross burning by the klan is legit free speech, burning one in someone's yard as a means to intimidate -- not so much.

TJMAC77SP
08-04-2015, 01:19 PM
Taking that....it would seem to me that burning an LGBT flag in a general protest would be protected...but, burning it on a gay couples front lawn, maybe not as it could imply a threat/intimidation to that specific couple...as in the previous case you cited.


im just guessing

Oh absolutely. I am not arguing that the case was overcharged. I do believe though that in a alternative situation as I described there would be no hate crime enhancement added. Unless of course there was a massive Facebook share over it. Then things might be different.

MikeKerriii
08-05-2015, 02:31 AM
Now we have a strawman.

Federal law (103-322A,) defines hate crime as:

"a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."

I think national origin would fit the definition.

BTW, I agree that a hate crime more than likely would not be included in the charges but not for the reason you so desperately need to be true.



For something to be a hate crime it first has to qualify as a crime even without hate. You just proved my point.

TJMAC77SP
08-05-2015, 02:41 AM
For something to be a hate crime it first has to qualify as a crime even without hate. You just proved my point.

Exactly how did my post prove this post?

"Since the hate would have been directed at a nation not a group he would not have had the hate crimes tag thrown on."

You really aren't very good at this sort of thing.