Trump Proposes Penalty for Flag Burning

[texas_ex2000]

"I can't help but think while reading his tweets 'doesn't have have a briefing on ISIS that he should be reading'?".

What a coincidence, because when Obama spent time doing March Madness pools, Slow Jams/Mean Tweets on the Tonight Show, guest editing Wired, etcetera, I wondered the same thing.

And people were shocked that Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania went blue to red...

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

Oh and yes I do follow the law.

He's trolling. And to go back to the question you dodged about the Law being the Law, do you also believe our elected officials (Trump for example...maybe the Mayor of Austin or some other cities) should enforce the Law...such as the 1st Amendment?

 

[Mr. Deez]

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.

Fighting back is good, but is proposing bad ideas supposedly (and at best) under the guise of internet trolling really the job or duty of the President of the United States? Can't we get somebody else to do this?

And I'm starting to question whether this really was a case of Trump-trolling rather than some post-Tweet spin work by Trump's PR team. If it was, then I would think he'd propose something that's actually similar to what HRC proposed in 2005. As NJ pointed out, HRC really just added a flag element to criminalize and create federal jurisdiction on acts that are already against the law. (That also means her bill was a cheap political stunt designed to give her a chance to grandstand and make her appear more patriotic than she actually is more than it was anything else.) Trump is actually calling for prosecuting the flag burning itself (regardless of whether it's coupled with some other criminal act), and tossing in the citizenship forfeiture just adds another layer of absurdity. Since that's pretty different from what HRC proposed, I think Trump actually threw this suggestion out there because he wants to ban flag burning.

 

[theiioftx]

We should absolutely protect an idiot's right to burn the flag. It should be protected as a form of free speech.

We should also protect someone's right to free speech by stopping it. A punch in the mouth is free speech too.

 

[iatrogenic]

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

Those that burn the flag are dependent on those that serve under it.

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

Regardless of what the judiciary has expanded free speech to mean, the burning of a flag is not free "speech".

 

[NJlonghorn]

We should absolutely protect an idiot's right to burn the flag. It should be protected as a form of free speech.

We should also protect someone's right to free speech by stopping it. A punch in the mouth is free speech too.

Good point. If a guy was raised to put more value in patriotic symbols than patriotic ideals, we shouldn't blame him for lashing out in anger when someone hurts his poor wittle feelings.

Safe spaces for conservatives, protected by vigilantliism -- I love it.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Those that burn the flag are dependent on those that serve under it.

Absolutely true. I detest flag burners. I just like the First Amendment more than I hate flag burners.

Regardless of what the judiciary has expanded free speech to mean, the burning of a flag is not free "speech".

Conservative Justice Scalia thought it was. Liberal Justice John Paul Stevens thought it was not. I'll err on the side of Scalia.

 

[iatrogenic]

Absolutely true. I detest flag burners. I just like the First Amendment more than I hate flag burners.

Conservative Justice Scalia thought it was. Liberal Justice John Paul Stevens thought it was not. I'll err on the side of Scalia.

The actual act of burning a flag is no more than destruction of property. If an electrical short burns an entire flag factory down, I have a hard time believing anyone would say the burning of flags in the factory was an act of free speech. It is just a physical destruction of tangible property.

If you want to shout or write "I hate America", that would be free speech. The judiciary has mixed the two.

 

[NJlonghorn]

The actual act of burning a flag is no more than destruction of property. If an electrical short burns an entire flag factory down, I have a hard time believing anyone would say the burning of flags in the factory was an act of free speech. It is just a physical destruction of tangible property.

If you want to shout or write "I hate America", that would be free speech. The judiciary has mixed the two.

Since the mid-18th century, courts and legal commentators have agreed that any conduct meant to express a viewpoint is "speech". The writings of our founding fathers show that they were well-aware of this fact when they drafted and approved the Bill of Rights. This is why originalists like Scalia hold that intentionally burning a flag as an expression of disapproval/anger/whatever is a form of speech. This is in no way comparable to accidentally burning a flag factory down, which is not meant to express a viewpoint.

Edit to add: I just looked back at the Johnson opinion. The majority (including Scalia) held that expressive conduct is "speech" for First Amendment purposes so long as (a) the conduct was intended to convey a "particularized message" and (b) "the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it".

 

[iatrogenic]

Since the mid-18th century, courts and legal commentators have agreed that any conduct meant to express a viewpoint is "speech". The writings of our founding fathers show that they were well-aware of this fact when they drafted and approved the Bill of Rights. This is why originalists like Scalia hold that intentionally burning a flag as an expression of disapproval/anger/whatever is a form of speech. This is in no way comparable to accidentally burning a flag factory down, which is not meant to express a viewpoint.

Edit to add: I just looked back at the Johnson opinion. The majority (including Scalia) held that expressive conduct is "speech" for First Amendment purposes so long as (a) the conduct was intended to convey a "particularized message" and (b) "the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it".

So it is okay to burn a flag that expresses my viewpoint as a proud American? Doesn't that violate my right to free speech?

 

[Statalyzer]

We should also protect someone's right to free speech by stopping it. A punch in the mouth is free speech too.

No, it's a physical attack on another human being.

Those that burn the flag are dependent on those that serve under it.

Depends on what you mean by that, but either way it's not really relevant to whether the government ought to be hauling people off for disapproving of the government or the country. That crap is for totalitarian regimes and has no place in a Republic.

The actual act of burning a flag is no more than destruction of property.

Yes, so you apply the same rules as for any other property. Burning a flag that belongs to me is not illegal. Burning a flag that belongs to someone else, without that person's permission, is theft and vandalism.

 

[iatrogenic]

No, it's a physical attack on another human being.



Depends on what you mean by that, but either way it's not really relevant to whether the government ought to be hauling people off for disapproving of the government or the country. That crap is for totalitarian regimes and has no place in a Republic.



Yes, so you apply the same rules as for any other property. Burning a flag that belongs to me is not illegal. Burning a flag that belongs to someone else, without that person's permission, is theft and vandalism.

But my right to free speech doesn't belong to you. The flag expresses my views. Your property rights don't Trump my freedom of speech right.

 

[Statalyzer]

our property rights don't Trump my freedom of speech right.

Yes, they do.

 

[Mr. Deez]

So it is okay to burn a flag that expresses my viewpoint as a proud American? Doesn't that violate my right to free speech?

Not if you don't own the flag. If some jackass buys a flag and burns it as a political statement, that's his right. Your remedy is to speak out against it or buy your own flag and not burn it.

 

[iatrogenic]

So I couldn't drop off my religious brochures expressing my views at your doorstep in your private, gated community if such a community prohibited me doing so?

 

[Mr. Deez]

So I couldn't drop off my religious brochures expressing my views at your doorstep in your private, gated community if such a community prohibited me doing so?

No. You would be a trespasser.

 

[iatrogenic]

No. You would be a trespasser.

So property rights trump free speech rights and religious rights?

 

[Mr. Deez]

So property rights trump free speech rights and religious rights?

They don't trump them, but they can form the basis of a reasonable restriction on the time, place, and manner of your free speech and religious rights. I can say whatever I want, but I don't have the right to stand over your bed and yell it at you at 2 a.m.

 

[iatrogenic]

Yes, they do.

They don't trump them, but they can form the basis of a reasonable restriction on the time, place, and manner of your free speech and religious rights. I can say whatever I want, but I don't have the right to stand over your bed and yell it at you at 2 a.m.

Okay Counselor, give me your opinion on the following:

I found a few SCOTUS examples of free speech rights and religious rights trumping property rights (and even trumping the trespasser issue), but the Takings Clause looks to be the barrier to prevent flag burning. Although I can certainly see the validity to the Takings Clause argument, most of those arguments revolve around the idea that economic value of property would be decreased if "x" were allowed, therefore, "x" shouldn't be allowed. Burning a flag does not add economic value to the flag so that argument seems to be meritless. The argument then shifts from property rights and becomes the right to burn the flag to express your views vs. my right to not have the flag burned, which expresses my views. Now all I need is a 5-4 SCOTUS since they are all political anyway.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Okay Counselor, give me your opinion on the following:

I found a few SCOTUS examples of free speech rights and religious rights trumping property rights (and even trumping the trespasser issue), but the Takings Clause looks to be the barrier to prevent flag burning. Although I can certainly see the validity to the Takings Clause argument, most of those arguments revolve around the idea that economic value of property would be decreased if "x" were allowed, therefore, "x" shouldn't be allowed. Burning a flag does not add economic value to the flag so that argument seems to be meritless. The argument then shifts from property rights and becomes the right to burn the flag to express your views vs. my right to not have the flag burned, which expresses my views. Now all I need is a 5-4 SCOTUS since they are all political anyway.

To comment, I'd have to read the cases you're referring to. What are they?

 

[iatrogenic]

To comment, I'd have to read the cases you're referring to. What are they?

Marsh v Alabama 1946
Pruneyard v Robins 1980

For the argument that burning is a breach of the peace, info could be formulated based on language in Cantwell v Connecticut