The W
Views: 97877246
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
1.8.14 1107
The W - Current Events & Politics - Flag Amendment Coming Soon (Page 3)
This thread has 14 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.53
Pages: Prev 1 2 3
(719 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (51 total)
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 21 hours
#41 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.15
All of these posts perfectly IMO answer the question posed at the beginning. Look at all the energy and emotion expended on this issue whereas other more important issues regarding this country posted here often barely get a nibble.

This is the sheer genius of the neocon strategy. Much of what the Republican Party (not ordinary Republicans)stands for I find quite troubling, however, I bow before the strategy. This is like the diversions magicians use to divert your attention from what they are really doing and people on both sides of the aisle buy it.



Perception is reality
Leroy
Andouille








Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
#42 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.23
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    Sure you can. We do it all of the time. Freedom of speech is not an absolute right as it does not cover libel, slander, obscenity, etc. Most other freedoms our limited in some way, as well.


You don't go to jail for libel and slander. You can libel or slander someone all you want, but you'll likely get sued. My understanding is courts really don't like these cases, and the offender has to be pretty egregious with their words in order for the lawsuit to be successful.

Only a few states have criminal libel laws on the books, but they are old - and even threatening to prosecute will likely get the ACLU involved (ACLU Sues Salazar Over Criminal Libel).

And as far as I know, the Supreme Court has struck down state attempts to enforce criminal obscenity laws.



"The Chia Pet: When not bothering to give you a gift at all isn't enough to reveal how much I hate you."

-- General Manager Chris
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 10 hours
Last activity: 10 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#43 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.44
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    All of these posts perfectly IMO answer the question posed at the beginning. Look at all the energy and emotion expended on this issue whereas other more important issues regarding this country posted here often barely get a nibble.
It doesn't take a lot of energy to repeat yourself. I'm still on the fence about letting this thread go on.



CRZ
BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2758 days
Last activity: 2486 days
#44 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.76
    Originally posted by Leroy
    You don't go to jail for libel and slander. You can libel or slander someone all you want, but you'll likely get sued. My understanding is courts really don't like these cases, and the offender has to be pretty egregious with their words in order for the lawsuit to be successful.


My only point was that there are forms of speech not protected by the First Amendment. Libel and slander are two of them. I really don't know about the applicability of the laws against slander or libel and how they are applied, though.


    And as far as I know, the Supreme Court has struck down state attempts to enforce criminal obscenity laws.


I'm not sure about state attempts to enforce obscenity laws, but the most recent case that I found during some cursory Googling that dealt with obscenity is United States vs. American Library Association, Inc. (2003, a summary can be found here (firstamendmentcenter.org) ). The USSC upheld a federal law requiring that libraries use content filters in an effort to shield minors from obscene materials.

Of course, aside from these types of speech, there are several other things that fall under the umbrella of non protected speech, such as fighting words, child pornography, and the clear and present danger standard.
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 23 hours
Last activity: 10 hours
#45 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    I am quite sure that if I were to go to court and a judge asked "why did you hit Mr Jones when he was burning the flag?"
    and my response was "I was protecting the flag, and trying to stop it from being disrespected, as required by US CODE." I would walk out of court a free man.

    Being willing to accept the consequences does NOT justify my actions. Accepting the consequences means that to me personally, its the right thing to do, and I would do it no matter what may happen. You know, standing up for something you feel is RIGHT. Something you feel is JUST. Expressing your disgust at somebody destroying a symbol of my nation.





US CODE does NOT equal law.

Check out Snopes.com


    The rules we observe with respect to our flag are laid out in the U.S. Code. (These codes specify how the flag should be displayed, but they do not establish any legal penalties for those who violate them.)





The Catastrophic Annihilation War Room
"You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing?" --Toby, West Wing

The Thrill
Banger








Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 106 days
Last activity: 91 days
#46 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.25
God bless the men of 2nd Bn, 127th Inf, 32d "Red Arrow" Brigade, WI Army Nat'l Guard...good luck, and come home soon.

This just in from the AP as of 1345 CDT, 22 Jun 05...

...the House passed the amendment that would allow Congress to ban flag burning.

No link yet.




Rebecca Louise Ross
1947-2005
R.I.P., Mom...

www.pancreatic.org

vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2950 days
Last activity: 164 days
#47 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by The Thrill
    This just in from the AP as of 1345 CDT, 22 Jun 05...

    ...the House passed the amendment that would allow Congress to ban flag burning.

    No link yet.


Not unexpected, though it was a reasonably close margin. The real test will be in the Senate.




Vanilla Ice on stardom: "I had a weekend that lasted a couple of years."
BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2758 days
Last activity: 2486 days
#48 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.98
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    All of these posts perfectly IMO answer the question posed at the beginning. Look at all the energy and emotion expended on this issue whereas other more important issues regarding this country posted here often barely get a nibble.

    This is the sheer genius of the neocon strategy. Much of what the Republican Party (not ordinary Republicans)stands for I find quite troubling, however, I bow before the strategy. This is like the diversions magicians use to divert your attention from what they are really doing and people on both sides of the aisle buy it.


I have to wonder though DrDirt, how does your stance on this take into account the widespread support of the last piece of Federal legislation prohibiting flag burning back in 1989? Legislation, by the way, that was passed 91-9 in the Senate and co-sponsored by two House Democrats. Were there that many neocons in the Senate? Were many Democrats also neocons? Or is this perhaps an amendment/issue that might appeal to a wide cross section of America including folks on the left and the right politically?
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 21 hours
#49 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.15
    Originally posted by BigSteve
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      All of these posts perfectly IMO answer the question posed at the beginning. Look at all the energy and emotion expended on this issue whereas other more important issues regarding this country posted here often barely get a nibble.

      This is the sheer genius of the neocon strategy. Much of what the Republican Party (not ordinary Republicans)stands for I find quite troubling, however, I bow before the strategy. This is like the diversions magicians use to divert your attention from what they are really doing and people on both sides of the aisle buy it.


    I have to wonder though DrDirt, how does your stance on this take into account the widespread support of the last piece of Federal legislation prohibiting flag burning back in 1989? Legislation, by the way, that was passed 91-9 in the Senate and co-sponsored by two House Democrats. Were there that many neocons in the Senate? Were many Democrats also neocons? Or is this perhaps an amendment/issue that might appeal to a wide cross section of America including folks on the left and the right politically?


The use of emotional yet ultimately nebulous issues is an old strategy that has been perfected by the neocons starting in the late 1980's. These types of issues take a lot of testosterone to stand against.

Is there appeal to respecting the flag? Of course. However, much of this depends on how you frame the questions.



Perception is reality
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2950 days
Last activity: 164 days
#50 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    I have to wonder though DrDirt, how does your stance on this take into account the widespread support of the last piece of Federal legislation prohibiting flag burning back in 1989? Legislation, by the way, that was passed 91-9 in the Senate and co-sponsored by two House Democrats. Were there that many neocons in the Senate? Were many Democrats also neocons? Or is this perhaps an amendment/issue that might appeal to a wide cross section of America including folks on the left and the right politically?


That legislation passed _specifically_ because the Democrats wanted to shut down Bush the Elder's demands for a Constitutional amendment, by means of passing a lesser protection. They knew that it would be found unconstitutional, which it was, and yet if anyone assaulted their patriotism they could say "Look, we passed a law protecting the flag." When the amendment itself was proposed, it failed to pass that Democratic-controlled Congress with the required 2/3 majority.

At the time, the Democrats were smarting from Dukakis's loss, caused at least in part by Bush's relentless smearing of Dukakis's patriotism on the campaign trail. While preventing the amendment was clearly the right thing to do, it was not the time for dramatic stands on the issue when subtler means would work.

A chronology. I love the quote at the top of the page, which rings true today:

"If a jerk burns a flag, America is not threatened. If a jerk burns a flag, democracy is not under siege. If a jerk burns a flag, freedom is not at risk and we are not threatened. My colleagues, we are offended; and to change our Constitution because someone offends us is, in itself, unconscionable." -- Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-New York).

The fact that this is even on the _radar screen_ of Congress offends me more than the act of flag-burning itself, frankly.

(edited by vsp on 23.6.05 0902)

Vanilla Ice on stardom: "I had a weekend that lasted a couple of years."
BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2758 days
Last activity: 2486 days
#51 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.98

    The use of emotional yet ultimately nebulous issues is an old strategy that has been perfected by the neocons starting in the late 1980's. These types of issues take a lot of testosterone to stand against.


I'm still confused as to whether or not this Bill, similar to one sponsored and widely supported by Democratic Congressmen sixteen years ago, is part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy perpetrated by the neocons.

And thanks for that link vsp:


    "Beat up a flagburner" bills to encourage vigilantism by reducing the penalty for assault to a $5 fine if the victim is burning a flag are introduced in several state legislatures.


I thought that I had heard about this type of thing, but I googled it and never found anything about it so I assumed I was wrong (note to vsp: I do not support vigilante justice for flag burners).

(edited by BigSteve on 23.6.05 1043)
Pages: Prev 1 2 3
Thread rated: 4.53
Pages: Prev 1 2 3
Thread ahead: Canadian gov't passes bill while Opposition is (literally) caught sleeping
Next thread: Karl Rove makes bold statement
Previous thread: 48 hours to stop the broadcast flag
(719 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Except for the thread about Linda losing or winning. It was very much wrestling related as it clearly aired on Monday Night RAW (even if you don't watch RAW) and much the dialogue was about happenings within WWE.
- John Orquiola, Stay Classy Vince, stay classy. (2010)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Flag Amendment Coming Soon (Page 3)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.13 seconds.