Trump Proposes Penalty for Flag Burning

[Musburger1]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ag-burning-americans-loss-citizenship-or-jail

Such a proposal may prove popular but in my opinion passing legislation would open the door to authoritarianism. First, it is illegal to burn the flag. At this point it becomes a small step to making it illegal to criticize the government.

Just recently the Washington Post ran an article which listed "pro-Russian fake news web sites." This is McCarthyism 2.0.

I doubt if Trump's suggestion goes anywhere but it's one more thing to keep an eye on.

 

[Joe Fan]

He is way too generous

 

[UTChE96]

Meh. I don't take anything Trump says seriously anymore. One week he wants to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary then a couple weeks later there will be no investigation. He's a complete crackpot.

 

[Joe Fan]

.....First, it is illegal to burn the flag. ...

To be serious for a moment, the issue is pretty much settled law, as of fairly recently. I think 48 or 49 states used to have anti-flag-burning statutes.

Trump is just manipulating the media, again. And they are tripping all over themselves, again.

 

[Musburger1]

If this gets publicity, you may see all the anarchist crowds beginning to have flag burning rallies.

 

[Joe Fan]

If this gets publicity, you may see all the anarchist crowds beginning to have flag burning rallies.

Again, if so, it is to Trump's benefit.
Flag burning turns the rest of the country off.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Trump is just manipulating the media, again. And they are tripping all over themselves, again.

You may want to create a hotkey with that statement for every time Trump tweets something a little crazy. That would save you a lot of time.

 

[Joe Fan]

You may want to create a hotkey with that statement for every time Trump tweets something a little crazy. That would save you a lot of time.

No, I think it's very interesting. We are seeing a new level response.
You dismiss it way too quickly.

 

[Joe Fan]

Something else amusing about this latest Trump tweet -- look who was the sponsor of the last flag protection act .... lol
(click once to enlarge)

 

[mchammer]

So, Hillary protesters who burn flags are called out by the Donald using proposed anti-flag burning legislation sponsored by Hillary. In the mean time, reporters (and SH and CHE 96) are caught unaware of the trap Trump laid for them.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Something else amusing about this latest Trump tweet -- look who was the sponsor of the last flag protection act .... lol
(click once to enlarge)

Interesting. I read the text of the bill Hillary Clinton sponsored back in 2005. Link. It sought to criminalize burning a U.S. flag if it fell into one of four categories:

1. if it is done with the "primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace"
2. if it is done to threaten or intimidate another person or group
3. if the flag belongs to the US government
4. if the flag belongs to someone else and the burning occurs on US-owned land.

The stolen-flag portions of this bill (items 3 and 4) make sense to me, though I don't think there needs to be a separate law -- it is already illegal to steal someone's property and burn it.

The "incite . . . violence or breach the peace" and "threaten or intimidate" language (items 1 and 2) seem to be an attempt to carve out non-violent flag burning as a means of free expression. Even with this carve-out, I think it is a horrible idea. If someone truly does incite violence, such as by shouting "kill them!" or let's turn this town upside down!", that is already illegal. Burning a flag adds nothing other than expression of protected content, so there should be no separate, additional penalty.

It is impossible to know what Trump is now proposing, or if he will stick with it. If he is proposing something along the lines of what Clinton proposed, I would oppose it. If he is suggesting something even stronger, such as a ban on all flag burning, my opposition would be more vehement (but regardless it wouldn't survive judicial review).

 

[NJlonghorn]

So, Hillary protesters who burn flags are called out by the Donald using proposed anti-flag burning legislation sponsored by Hillary. In the mean time, reporters (and SH and CHE 96) are caught unaware of the trap Trump laid for them.

Unless the protesters are inciting violence or threatening someone, Hillary's bill would not have criminalized the flag burning. But you are right that Trump laid an effective trap, because the media and the general public will never pick up on nuances like that. Hell, even the well-educated posters on this board are often immune to details.

 

[Joe Fan]

Interesting. I read the text of the bill Hillary Clinton sponsored back in 2005...

First, Texas v. Johnson is out there (although it is not exactly ironclad on the matter)
Second, I dont think its a serious proposal

 

[Seattle Husker]

So, Hillary protesters who burn flags are called out by the Donald using proposed anti-flag burning legislation sponsored by Hillary. In the mean time, reporters (and SH and CHE 96) are caught unaware of the trap Trump laid for them.

You have me confused for someone that cares whether HRC supported flag burning limits. I don't give a damn whether HRC, a Democrat or any other politician supported it. My views are not restricted to whatever position a candidate or party adopts.

 

[UTChE96]

So, Hillary protesters who burn flags are called out by the Donald using proposed anti-flag burning legislation sponsored by Hillary. In the mean time, reporters (and SH and CHE 96) are caught unaware of the trap Trump laid for them.

And what trap would that be? I think you have the false impression that I am a Hillary supporter. Notice my previous message about Trump's flakiness about prosecuting Hillary. He should absolutely follow-through with his promise to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate possible quid pro quos regarding donations to the Clinton foundation. Too bad that he is already breaking promises before he has been sworn in.

 

[Joe Fan]

It's funny but doesn't it seem that the same people who have been 100% wrong about everything so far with regard to Trump are the same ones who are now quite certain Trump should stop tweeting?

 

[iatrogenic]

So burning the flag is legal (freedom of expression), and it is protected by U.S. law. The U.S. is a country represented symbolically by the U.S. flag. So if someone is burning the flag, they are against the freedom of expression they are expressing?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Banning flag burning disrespects the flag more than burning the flag does.

 

[Joe Fan]

Banning flag burning disrespects the flag more than burning the flag does.

lol

Meanwhile Trump trolled the evil US media. As soon as he tweeted about the flag, they started attacking him. What they did not realize was the position he took on twitter was the same as their candidate. He basically adopted Hillary's position on flag burning in her 2005 Senate bill (which would have jailed flag burners for one year). Now, her supporters are busy on Wiki trying to erase any reference to her proposed legislation (see above). Trump trolled the media into savaging Hillary Clinton
To me, it is all so funny.
Trump beat them again.

 

[texas_ex2000]

This is hilarious. Trump is playing chess here with the media.

The law on this will never change, and the only way for the media to cover it would to be sympathetic to flag burners. And his view/rhetoric on this is extremely popular. I mean really, who doesn't hate a f'in flag burner?

haha

 

[Statalyzer]

Unless the protesters are inciting violence or threatening someone, Hillary's bill would not have criminalized the flag burning. But you are right that Trump laid an effective trap, because the media and the general public will never pick up on nuances like that.

Not much of a nuance. Inciting violence and threatening someone were already illegal. Making the act of burning the flag itself illegal is still a problem, even if it's only illegal if the intent is something else illegal - just arrest/try someone for that. Is it somehow less of a crime if someone incites violence and breaths out threats while not burning a flag?

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[mchammer]

 

[Mr. Deez]

What's remarkable is that people think it's cool that the President is an internet troller.

My goal in the next 4 years is to post something online that incites a personal response from Trump.

 

[Joe Fan]

Again, if so, it is to Trump's benefit.
Flag burning turns the rest of the country off.

told ya

'Communist Party' protesters were out in NY last night burning the flag

 

[texas_ex2000]

told ya

'Communist Party' protesters were out in NY last night burning the flag

The tweet is genius. Flag burning has almost the same level of contempt that racism has. If Trump tweeted, "If you're racist you should lose your citizenship and go to jail," most people know that's not possible by the law, but would definitely say to themselves...damm straight!

 

[texas_ex2000]

What's remarkable is that people think it's cool that the President is an internet troller.

Democrats, supposedly, have dominated social media the past 8 years. You got to fight fire with fire.

Nowadays, we are so partisan that I don't think people respect or consider an opposing point of view until they've had their pants pulled down by a troll.

And liberals whining about how the Law is the Law is simultaneously hilarious and tone deaf.

You have me confused for someone that cares whether HRC supported flag burning limits. I don't give a damn whether HRC, a Democrat or any other politician supported it. My views are not restricted to whatever position a candidate or party adopts.

I'm confused Husker...are you saying, regardless of politics, that we should enforce and follow the Law?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Nowadays, we are so partisan that I don't think people respect or consider an opposing point of view until they've had their pants pulled down by a troll.

The best way to get someone to listen to you is to become an internet troll? Seriously?

I'm confused Husker...are you saying, regardless of politics, that we should enforce and follow the Law?

That was a response to mchammer that had the mistaken belief that I (he called me out by name) should follow and support whatever HRC says as if I'm beholden to her in some way.

 

[texas_ex2000]

The best way to get someone to listen to you is to become an internet troll? Seriously?

No not seriously...that's why it's called trolling. Don't take it seriously.

That was a response to mchammer that had the mistaken belief that I (he called me out by name) should follow and support whatever HRC says as if I'm beholden to her in some way.

Well, since this thread is about the 1st Amendment and the Law, do you or do you not support following and enforcing the Law as it is written even when it is opposed to your politics?

Just curious, because I do.

 

[Seattle Husker]

No not seriously...that's why it's called trolling. Don't take it seriously.

OK. I missed the sarcasm. That happens when the trolling is often celebrated by his supporters. Cooper Anderson said it best when responding to Trumps Twitter rant against CNN a few days ago when he said (paraphrasing) "I can't help but think while reading his tweets 'doesn't have have a briefing on ISIS that he should be reading'?".

Well, since this thread is about the 1st Amendment and the Law, do you or do you not support following and enforcing the Law as it is written even when it is opposed to your politics?

Just curious, because I do.

Is Trump advocating enforcing the law or changing it? It sure seems like the latter.

Oh and yes I do follow the law.