flag desecration or free speech?

[PALADIN-hgwt]

xxxxx

[Gutshot John]

No one wins a fight with a cripple. It's just what he wants.

Besides you never know how he got into that wheelchair. If he's a vet, then it becomes all the more complicated.

Ignore him, eventually he'll get bored and go away.

[Codename46]

Even if the desecrater is not crippled, it is his right to express his opinions by committing such an act, like it or not.

I would move on and buy some ammo.

[PALADIN-hgwt]

xxxxx

[Submariner]

Take away the flag?

By what authority do you take the property of another without his permission?

Jes' sayin'.

[PALADIN-hgwt]

xxxxx

[GodCountryCorps]

In October of 2001 I was a boot Marine home on leave. I visited a friend's church at their invitation, and as I walked to the parking lot after service I saw a young man about my age at the time walking and talking to his friends.

He was wearing a flight-style jacket with an American flag pinned to the back, upside down with the Anarchist's "A" scrawled across the flag. He was talking to his friends about something anti-American (I don't remember what because I was seeing red after catching the glance at his jacket). I approached him and asked why he had the flag in such a disrespectful manner on his jacket and he said some tripe like America deserved 9/11. Being a young Marine and inflamed with patriotism so soon after the attack, I turned him around and ripped the flag off his jacket, promplty ruining his jacket in the process. He yelled, "Is that right!?" I yelled back, "Yeah that's right!"

Just my anecdotal contribution to a similar situation. Granted, the kid was not a cripple and could have punched me for ruining his property, but being the pansy he was he just sulked and walked away. I found out later he was kicked out of the Air Force for smoking weed. Hindsight is 20/20 and I see I reacted out of emotion rather than reason and probably broke the law and violated a couple of his rights. . .oh well, do something radical and get a radical reaction.

[Submariner]

Hindsight is 20/20 and I see I reacted out of emotion rather than reason and probably broke the law and violated a couple of his rights. . .oh well, do something radical and get a radical reaction.

Most places, such conduct is assault. A conviction for such an act could have jeopardized your career in the Marine Corps.

Would you do it again, given the same circumstances?

[GodCountryCorps]

Probably would not do the same. Like I said, I was younger at the time and hindsight is 20/20; now I realize I violated his rights and it follows that my older and wiser sensibilities would now preclude the same actions as when I was young and naive. But my bravado and patriotism remain in tact, so I would definitely engage him in debate and not let such a detestable act pass without condemnation.

[Codename46]

In the Texas vs. Johnson(1989) case heard by the Supreme Court and decided by a 5-4 split in the court, the burning of a flag was held to be protected 1st A. speech due to the context of occuring at the end of a protest demonstration.

The conduct I witnessed today was an inarticulate action whose only result was to irritate, anger, and endanger passersby by creating a distracting spectacle at a busy intersection. His actions are commensurate to yelling "fire" in a theater, and that is NOT protected speech. His actions in and of themselves were offensive, and he was not expressing any discernible opinion on any matter except disrespect for our nations flag.


Paladin

No, what he was doing is abusing his own property, which is perfectly within his rights to do so.

[Leonidas]

I agree with some of the sentiments expressed above, it is strictly a property rights issue.
One thing I find funny though are those who will express all kinds of emotion, whether verbal or physical at the burning of a flag but will barley utter a mumble when the Constitution is being shredded. I think some should be careful in mistaking patriotism with the nationalism they disguise by draping a flag over it.
(as a disclaimer, I'm not making reference to any of the posts in this topic)

[Gutshot John]

I know many may disagree with the premise of this question, so let me make it clear that desecrating a flag is something I find offensive.

That being said, when does the symbol of the idea become more important than the idea itself?

[Detective_D]

I agree with those that are saying it is his personal property and therefore it cant be taken from him no matter what he is doing with.

But, I just wish their was a way that the flag could always be the property of the Govt. so that this could not happen. I know it could never happen that way, but I think it sounds good.

[Codename46]

I agree with those that are saying it is his personal property and therefore it cant be taken from him no matter what he is doing with.

But, I just wish their was a way that the flag could always be the property of the Govt. so that this could not happen. I know it could never happen that way, but I think it sounds good.

Socialism much?

[Detective_D]

yeah yeah, I know..((laughing))

[skyugo]

would you want to live in a country where a man was arrested for damaging his own flag?

how people treat him in regard to his actions is his problem. with freedom comes responsibility.

[usaffarmer]

maybe approach him and ask him why he is doing it, that is if you have the time. Maybe he was wronged by the government, or just wants attention. In which case he will get :confused:

[NickB]

In the Texas vs. Johnson(1989) case heard by the Supreme Court and decided by a 5-4 split in the court, the burning of a flag was held to be protected 1st A. speech due to the context of occuring at the end of a protest demonstration.

The conduct I witnessed today was an inarticulate action whose only result was to irritate, anger, and endanger passersby by creating a distracting spectacle at a busy intersection. His actions are commensurate to yelling "fire" in a theater, and that is NOT protected speech. His actions in and of themselves were offensive, and he was not expressing any discernible opinion on any matter except disrespect for our nations flag.

Yelling "fire" in a theater is not defined as speech by the Court - it is defined as action, and therefore not protected by the Constitution. Although slapping the flag against the ground is also an action, it would likely be defined as political speech by the Court, and is therefore the most important, most protected form of speech.

The question, then, becomes one of public safety. We should never tell someone they cannot speak, but it's perfectly acceptable to tell them they cannot speak at a place/time that endangers others. You may have a very valid point in this situation...

I don't know how much you guys follow European politics, but most of western Europe is traveling down a scary road with regards to freedom of speech. Many of the countries have anti-Holocaust denial legislation where you can go to jail or be fined for questioning the Holocaust. Anti-racism legislation that can do the same if you say something perceived as racist (a member of parliament was jailed in Denmark for calling his Muslim colleague "crazy" for wearing her head scarf in parliament). I think we should learn from European mistakes and keep our First (and Second) Amendments in tact as much as possible.

[ThirdWatcher]

First, let me say I find desecration of the flag reprehensible. I find the concept utterly profane.

With this in mind, I would (literally) look the other way. I just don't need the trouble (in my state, you cannot own a firearm if convicted of assault, even misdemeanor assault). It is clear the law protects the lunatic fringe.

Nonetheless, sometimes the cure is worse than the illness. I'm not sure I would want to spend a lot of LE time pursuing flag desecrating lunatics, anyway.

[CarlosDJackal]

Desecration of Free Speech? BOTH!!

Democracy is a double-edged sword because the very same freedoms that we want protected can be used against us. If there was a way to quantitatively and effectively delineate where freedom of speech ends and desecration begins, then there would be no issues.

But since human beings are the ones who will have to make such decisions, the lines are and will always be blurred. It's like firearms registration and such. While it may make sense to be able to track down who had possession of a firearm that was used in a crime; or to ensure that an individual who is trying to purchase a firearm is (a) Who he says he is and (b) Can legally do so; having some sort of a registration system can be misused (as was done in the Philippines when I was growing up).

You think watching something like that is hard, why don't you try having to protect someone like that from the true Americans who would love to take a shot at him? JM2CW.

[Spade]

I would love to jam my fist to the back of his skull. That being said I would probably just ask him what is problem was. My need to know would have to be satisfied. Besides who knows maybe by asking him about he might get pissed & take a swing at you where as you could respond accordingly.

[GodCountryCorps]

Desecration of [or] Free Speech? BOTH!!

Democracy is a double-edged sword because the very same freedoms that we want protected can be used against us. If there was a way to quantitatively and effectively delineate where freedom of speech ends and desecration begins, then there would be no issues.

But since human beings are the ones who will have to make such decisions, the lines are and will always be blurred.

You make good points, CarlosDJackal, regarding the deliniation of the free speech/desecration line.

To add to that, not only will the lines always be blurred, but who will make the ultimate decision to draw the lines and where will those lines be drawn in the first place? Who would decide that? Government officials? --That is another facet of growth of government, like our friend NickB warns us against, which will make us into a Euro-model socialist state.