| |
|
|
| 09 Mar 2014 06:38 PM |
| I would say that falls under freedom of speech, so it should be legal. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 09 Mar 2014 07:34 PM |
| In 7th grade, I don't know weather it was real or not, we were learning about the constitution and one of the incidents were that someone got arrested for putting the flag upside down. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
jplynn
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Jan 2009 |
| Total Posts: 1637 |
|
|
| 09 Mar 2014 07:35 PM |
| The question is did he put in upside down on purpose... |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Mar 2014 07:35 PM |
| Yes, he did because of the war in Iraq I think. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Mar 2014 07:42 PM |
Just to back up my first statement that it falls under freedom of speech:
htt p://online .wsj.com/ne ws/articles/SB12465 7642816289111
"Protection of symbolic speech would have fit well with James Madison's initial draft of the First Amendment, which spoke of the people's "right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments." Courts and commentators (including early Supreme Court Justice James Wilson) routinely used "publish" to refer to publicly displaying pictures and symbols, as well as printing books. When Congress recast Madison's phrasing to the shorter "freedom of speech, or of the press" it was not seen as a substantive change.
To be sure, some in the Founding era took a narrow view of free speech. They would have allowed the punishment -- probably as "sedition" -- of stridently antigovernment sentiments, likely including those conveyed by burning the flag. But they would not have denied that the First Amendment protects symbolic expression generally. They would have just argued that both harshly antigovernment symbols and harshly antigovernment words were punishable.
The Supreme Court has long treated symbolic expression -- such as burning flags, waving flags, wearing armbands, and the like -- as tantamount to verbal expression. In fact, the first Supreme Court case (Stromberg v. California) to strike down government action on free speech grounds involved symbolic expression (the display of a red flag). That was in 1931, hardly the heyday of liberal judging.
In Stromberg, the justices didn't discuss the history to which I point here; they viewed the matter as one of logic. But on this issue history and logic point in the same direction: From the late 1700s on, American law has recognized symbolic expression and verbal expression as legally and constitutionally equivalent. "Speech" and "press" in the First Amendment don't just apply to words or printed materials. The First Amendment protects symbols, paintings, handwriting and, yes, flag burning."
htt p://ww w.kansaspress.ku.e du/golfla.html
http://www.la w.cornell.edu/supre mecourt/text/491/397
"During the 1984 Republican National Convention, respondent Johnson participated in a political demonstration to protest the policies of the Reagan administration and some Dallas-based corporations. After a march through the city streets, Johnson burned an American flag while protesters chanted. No one was physically injured or threatened with injury, although several witnesses were seriously offended by the flag burning.
Johnson was convicted of desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute, and a state court of appeals affirmed. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the State, consistent with the First Amendment, could not punish Johnson for burning the flag in these circumstances. The court first found that Johnson's burning of the flag was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.
The court concluded that the State could not criminally sanction flag desecration in order to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity. It also held that the statute did not meet the State's goal of preventing breaches of the peace, since it was not drawn narrowly enough to encompass only those flag burnings that would likely result in a serious disturbance, and since the flag burning in this case did not threaten such a reaction.
Further, it stressed that another Texas statute prohibited breaches of the peace and could be used to prevent disturbances without punishing this flag desecration.
Held: Johnson's conviction for flag desecration is inconsistent with the First Amendment. Pp. 402-420." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Periapsis
|
  |
| Joined: 29 Nov 2013 |
| Total Posts: 342 |
|
| |
|
|
| 09 Mar 2014 07:48 PM |
" The US Flag Code is a federal law but it's illegal to enforce it"
Should it not be declared unconstitutional, then?
Anyway I think it falls under free speech myself but this is an actual topic since a constitutional amendment went through US Congress in 2006 and there are still efforts to pass one. The amendment was denied in the Senate in 2006 by a single vote! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Periapsis
|
  |
| Joined: 29 Nov 2013 |
| Total Posts: 342 |
|
| |
|
|
| 09 Mar 2014 07:55 PM |
| I know the army and schools still use it, at least, to handle flags. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
BestEgg
|
  |
| Joined: 29 Dec 2008 |
| Total Posts: 15567 |
|
| |
|
BestEgg
|
  |
| Joined: 29 Dec 2008 |
| Total Posts: 15567 |
|
|
| 09 Mar 2014 08:25 PM |
WAIT WHAT
aw hell i meant to post in RT. i was wondering what all this serious crap was |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Scyblocks
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Mar 2012 |
| Total Posts: 26732 |
|
|
| 09 Mar 2014 08:26 PM |
| Its illegal and legal at the same time in certain ways. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Mar 2014 08:27 PM |
"Its illegal and legal at the same time in certain ways."
What do you mean by that? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Scyblocks
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Mar 2012 |
| Total Posts: 26732 |
|
|
| 09 Mar 2014 08:34 PM |
There are laws about the way the US flag is to be handled. '
However "Fake" US flags (Such as stickers, miniature flags, ect)
do not fall under those laws. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Mar 2014 08:35 PM |
| So in the US it's illegal to burn real flags, correct? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Mar 2014 08:35 PM |
| I should be able to burn a not-see flag if I please. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Scyblocks
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Mar 2012 |
| Total Posts: 26732 |
|
| |
|
|
| 09 Mar 2014 08:38 PM |
| Anybody who hates the U.S. enough to burn their flag will gives zero f's about any laws against it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Mar 2014 08:39 PM |
| It's a piece of cloth, therefore you shouldn't be punished for it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 09 Mar 2014 09:29 PM |
"It's a piece of cloth, therefore you shouldn't be punished for it."
But it's offensive..
I believe it should depend on where the flag is being burned, for example if inside a building in a room full people, then it should be illegal, regard of intent to harm or not, because the chemicals in a flag can kill you.
Want to learn Java? Contact me or visit http://www.roblox.com/Groups/group.aspx?gid=632774 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Mar 2014 09:33 PM |
| @Der What if it's in a bathroom? What if we use the flag as toilet paper? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Mar 2014 09:41 PM |
Is there anyone in the bathroom, and do you kill yourself? If no, then not illegal, unless you set the rest of the place on fire.
If you want to use it as toilet paper, be my guest, I assume it'd be easier just using the toilet paper there, but who knows. Never tried it.
Want to learn Java? Contact me or visit http://www.roblox.com/Groups/group.aspx?gid=632774 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|