Is Free Speech Under Attack in this Country?

acesfull86 said:
When it meets the criteria set forth in Brandenburg v Ohio, which I think did a pretty good job of laying out the threshold:

Is there intent to provoke lawless action AND is the action likely to produce immediate violent behavior AND is the act explicitly advocating for violence/lawlessness

Burning a flag generally goes 0/3 on that scale. The person doing the burning could also be saying or doing something else that satisfies those three criteria, but then the issue at hand would be that other thing they’re saying/doing.
Click to expand...

So if there is a violent protest and people are burning the flag stating AMerica is evil and should be torn down then you would be against that?
 
You could’ve stopped at “so if there is a violent protest”

If there’s a violent protest, people are breaking the law. I want them to be stopped and charged for their violence. The flag burning is irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
acesfull86 said:
You could’ve stopped at “so if there is a violent protest”

If there’s a violent protest, people are breaking the law. I want them to be stopped and charged for their violence. The flag burning is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

But what if the person burning the flag is not breaking any laws but those around them are? Should that person be charged? Seems to follow your rules.
 
thethe said:
But what if the person burning the flag is not breaking any laws but those around them are? Should that person be charged? Seems to follow your rules.
Click to expand...
No. The people breaking the laws should be charged. The person burning the flag isn’t breaking any laws and should not be charged. I don’t see why this is difficult.
 
acesfull86 said:
No. The people breaking the laws should be charged. The person burning the flag isn’t breaking any laws and should not be charged. I don’t see why this is difficult.
Click to expand...

But it literally followed the three rules you cited.

1. intent to provoke lawless action
2. action likely to produce immediate violent behavior
3. act explicitly advocating for violence/lawlessness

What portion is not being met here?
 
???

0 of 3 are being met

Your scenario is a violent riot is taking place and one person is burning a flag…you haven’t even attempted to show why the one person burning the flag is the cause of all the lawlessness around him.
 
acesfull86 said:
???

0 of 3 are being met

Your scenario is a violent riot is taking place and one person is burning a flag…you haven’t even attempted to show why the one person burning the flag is the cause of all the lawlessness around him.
Click to expand...

The stipulations do not require that the flag burning is the sole or original cause of violence.
 
acesfull86 said:
You’ve done nothing to show why the flag burning in your situation is satisfying all three criteria. Or, any of the three, for that matter.
Click to expand...

Each of those conditions being met will always be a matter of interpretation so you'll never think they are filled but many think they would be.

You've already stated as a retort that it needs to create the illegal action but now clearly have backed off of that. This is all interpretation which is what laws are.....
 
chop2chip said:
I’ve never seen a flag burned in my entire life.

Is there a flag burning epidemic happening that I’m not aware of?
Click to expand...

During riots it happens all the time and often the person burning the flag is a member of a group that pushes the overthrow of America and western society.

But the low volume of it to me strengthens it because its not changing behavior for 99.999% of the population and those that contribute to it have no interest in the livlihood of America.
 
thethe said:
Each of those conditions being met will always be a matter of interpretation so you'll never think they are filled but many think they would be.

You've already stated as a retort that it needs to create the illegal action but now clearly have backed off of that. This is all interpretation which is what laws are.....
Click to expand...
Harry the hippie invites his neighbors over so they can burn his flag in his backyard. Their intent is to protest the government’s perceived lack of action on climate change. (Fails criteria 1) Everyone there not only agrees with the cause, but they’re all non-violent pacifists (Fails criteria 2) The stated intent of the protest is not to overthrow the government, but to call attention to what they feel is an important issue, and advocate for voting in a different set of politicians (Fails criteria 3)

Do you agree or disagree with Trump that Harry should get an automatic one year prison sentence for his action?
 
acesfull86 said:
Harry the hippie invites his neighbors over so they can burn his flag in his backyard. Their intent is to protest the government’s perceived lack of action on climate change. (Fails criteria 1) Everyone there not only agrees with the cause, but they’re all non-violent pacifists (Fails criteria 2) The stated intent of the protest is not to overthrow the government, but to call attention to what they feel is an important issue, and advocate for voting in a different set of politicians (Fails criteria 3)

Do you agree or disagree with Trump that Harry should get an automatic one year prison sentence for his action?
Click to expand...

I do not agree this person should be charged with a crime and have confidence that neither does the Trump admin.

You can't push this by saying we want all illegals or islamic fundamentalist/sympathizers to not be allowed to burn flags.
 
thethe said:
During riots it happens all the time and often the person burning the flag is a member of a group that pushes the overthrow of America and western society.

But the low volume of it to me strengthens it because it’s not changing behavior for 99.999% of the population and those that contribute to it have no interest in the livlihood of America.
Click to expand...
Okay so then it’s the rioting thats a problem no?

Arrest and charge them for that. The rest reeks of grandstanding.
 
thethe said:
I do not agree this person should be charged with a crime and have confidence that neither does the Trump admin.

You can't push this by saying we want all illegals or islamic fundamentalist/sympathizers to not be allowed to burn flags.
Click to expand...
Then you agree that burning the flag, in and of itself, is NOT an act that incites violence. It must be accompanied by some other action. And THAT action is the actual issue.

Btw, I don’t see anywhere in Trump’s announcement where my scenario would spare Harry a year in prison.
 
acesfull86 said:
Then you agree that burning the flag, in and of itself, is NOT an act that incites violence. It must be accompanied by some other action. And THAT action is the actual issue.

Btw, I don’t see anywhere in Trump’s announcement where my scenario would spare Harry a year in prison.
Click to expand...

Yes - the intent of the person is key. Why is that controversial or shocking?

Of course you don't see it because the pronouncement has to be general or similar to the 'Muslim Ban' it would be struck down in a minute.
 
thethe said:
So if there is a violent protest and people are burning the flag stating AMerica is evil and should be torn down then you would be against that?
Click to expand...
I like how for years, republicans have been arguing against hate crimes because if you make a crime your intent shoudn't matter, now they're calling for people doing legal things to be charged because they're adjacent to people doing illegal things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top