user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
For one it would dillute an otherwise profoundly important and influential document.
That's another reason why I wouldn't support it.
I disagree with it. It's a form of expression and it should be legal like every other "immoral" act.
The same people who'd support this ban are the same people who criticize the middle east for having bans on Koran desecration because it interferes with freedom of expression. Contradiction? Yes, I think so.
^Yeah, but the difference is that they don't like the Koran. They love the flag. As for what others think, why the hell should that matter? They're not the Chosen Ones...
It's freedom of expression, would not support an amendment to ban doing that
LD: I think they're criticizing the middle east for rioting and killing dozens of people at the unsubstantiated rumor that someone, somewhere, may have at some point, possibly desecrated a koran. Not really the same thing.
No, it shouldn't be illegal: despised, hated, reviled, completely distasteful, but legal.
Hell, if we reacted to muslims desecrating the american flag the same way they react to americans desecrating a koran there wouldn't be a US left, we'd have rioted and killed each other off long ago. Arabs have a bizarre desire to burn american flags (one that makes your average west coast liberal look like a pro-american nationalist). I don't get it. It's not like they need the warmth, it's plenty hot there. And even if they did they have plenty of oil and disobedient women to burn.
Freedom of speech is all dandy but there must be a cut off line. Flags represent not governments but countries as a whole, so buy burning a flag you are calling for the destruction of that country since it is represented by that flag.
Anyone who would burn a flag is not a freedom fighter but a psycho without limits.
Freedom of speech is one of our founding tenets. We may not like watching Old Glory burn (I among that number), but I know that the worst that can happen to you for doing it is five years in prison and a $50,000 fine, if memory serves. Also, if memory serves, there a re fourteen countries where the penalty for burning the national flag is a bullet in the head, on site. I'll take spiritual discomfort over death, any day.
"Flags represent not governments but countries as a whole, so buy burning a flag you are calling for the destruction of that country since it is represented by that flag."
Flags are basically symbols, and they represent what you make them out to be, whether it be a country, the freedoms of that country, or the government of that country. One cannot say that burning a flag calls for the destruction of a country. Does it represent a call for change? Absolutely. Destruction? Nope.
"Freedom of speech is all dandy but there must be a cut off line. Flags represent not governments but countries as a whole, so buy burning a flag you are calling for the destruction of that country since it is represented by that flag."
What if you're nation is run by a dictator? Since you're opposed to flag burning then I can only assume that you would oppose anyone who burned the Nazi Swatzika during WW2. Or are you going to contradict yourself and disagree. Either we let all flags be burnt or we allow no flag to be burnt. There is no middle ground.
"Anyone who would burn a flag is not a freedom fighter but a psycho without limits."
I guess that means that the airforce and army that bombed Germans during WW2 are also "psychos without limits". I mean, a Nazi flag (the official flag of Germany at the time) must've caught fire somewhere.
Herzog, I'm sure that somewhere in the middle east you'll get arrested for burning the Koran. There are people who oppose that. That's where I'm trying to go with this. It's not relative to the riots.
Burning the flag is a form of political protest (speech) which is far more sacred to American tradition. Free speech is guaranteed by our constitution, so therefore flag burning is also protected.
Also note:
The U.S. Flag Code states" "The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning".
babcia - there is a cut off line - You can't yell fire in a movie theater nor can you incite others to violence. In order to ban it there must be a "compelling interest" for the state. Such as preventing injuries or damage to property.
The Constitution wasn't meant to be a piece of legislation, filled with legal prohibitions.
Plus, it would make flag-burning even more attractive to those wanting to insult the U.S., possibly even promoting more flag burning.
And since most flag-burning seems to happen outside the U.S., how would a Constitional amendment have any effect?
The proposal is being used by simplistic right-wingers to promote their stupid-headed agenda because it has so much emotional appeal, and they think that they can use it to smear anyone who is against the amendment.
"are you going to contradict yourself and disagree"
No i am not, i stand by what i said earlier under any and all circumstances.
Okay, then the entire western world that at one point burnt a Nazi flag at the time of war is mentally insane, gottcha.
No. I am not a big fan of flag burning and believe the act tends to demean the folks with the match more than any symbolic institutions. But I oppose the knee-jerk Nationalism that would attempt to criminalize such expression.
The burning of any country's flag, not just the American flag (Stars and Stripes), is wrong.
|
|
