Should flag burning be illegal?

cid · Post by **cid** » May 1, 2003, 9:09 pm

It is illegal to burn US currency, but ok to burn the US flag.

Only in America!!

I do not like seeing it done, but to each their own.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » May 1, 2003, 9:11 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:
Spangaloid_PE wrote:if i set the bible on fire, let it burn till it was nothing but ash...would that be ok?
Yes. I may find a bible and do that myself next time I need to start a fire. It's a book, a boring one at that.

Heh.

Someday, Dregor will

and think he will go and be a

but really cause he

teh bible he will go and meet

and teh devil will do this a lot to Dregor:

and poor Dregor will

Yeah... considering the Bible is the word of man, not god, I fail to see how analogies like the one above could be true.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 1, 2003, 9:30 pm

cid wrote:It is illegal to burn US currency, but ok to burn the US flag.

Only in America!!

I do not like seeing it done, but to each their own.

Its illegal to burn any legal document. Paper currency is technically a legal document.

Plus the government likes to keep track of how many bills there are around.

valryte · Post by **valryte** » May 1, 2003, 11:34 pm

The American flag represents our freedom and rights.

And what better way is there to express your freedom than to burn that very item which represents your freedom...

Silvarel Mistmoon · Post by **Silvarel Mistmoon** » May 2, 2003, 1:29 am

If you burn the symbol that represents the freedoms you feel are being taken away or attempted to be taken away your a idiot. Make a GB symbol or a Symbol to represent who you feel is taking it away.

Maybe if they taught what the flag is for what was put in to making it like they use to more people would understand.

Every time I pick my kids up at school and see these little kids taking the flag down and slinging it over their shoulder I feel like walking in the school and asking the people in the office why in the hell don't they teach these kids about the flag. Every time I see people sitting in the stands when its being flown and the national anthem being played it makes me sick.

And yes when I hear about a cross being burned in the front yard of peoples houses simply because of their skin color it makes me sick and angers me.

BTW Kyo you seem to throw in the vets from Veitnam a lot when you get a chance, I wonder what your remarks would have been towards those Americans that came across the boarder to Canada during the draft.
Some of you older ones will remember how Canadians called Americans cowards for doing that.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 2, 2003, 1:34 am

yes because clearly it was me who brought up vietnam vets you fucking retarded slut. go ignore your kids some more.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » May 2, 2003, 7:25 am

I think some of you are missing the bigger picture here....If we allow the burning of flags (A CLEARLY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT JUST LIKE ANY OTHER), just imagine the flood gates from Republican hell opening and taking away rights we actually hold dear and act upon daily, who knows what is next after flag burning - hell, they're already close enough to banning Abortions

As long as shitstains continue to have the right to own "arms" then I will continue to defend my right to burn a flag...end of story

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 2, 2003, 7:50 am

Your rights are already being taken away. Do a close reading of the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act. I am still wondering how the hell they got those through Congress and Senate.

Ceredwin · Post by **Ceredwin** » May 2, 2003, 8:23 am

If we wish to remain who we are and keep our freedoms, we must allow those who express themselves in repellent ways the same right. As long as they have a fire permit (if needed in that locality) they should be allowed to burn the flag.

As for tattered rags that once were flags hanging in front of houses, on cars etc, it saddens me. Politely educating your neighbors on the proper treatment of the flag might help, since they had the right patriotic intention, just obviously are ignorant of protocal.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 2, 2003, 11:37 am

flag burning isnt even a real problem.

talk about flag burning probably generates 98% of flag burnings.

i have never witnessed an American flag being burned in the US in person. I have seen, i dont know hundreds of thousands of well treated American flags in the last 30 years, none of them were on fire.

I dont even know why the people who are so opposed to flag burning try to politicize it so much. the only time it happens is when somebody talks about preventing it.

kind of like telling your daughter they cant wear a certain shirt, they sneak it out in their purse, and put it on later.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » May 2, 2003, 11:44 am

This is just me being a lazy ass.. but where in the constitution does it say people have a right to freedom of expression? I always thought It was Freedom of Speech. I understand that some of you may consider these two to be the same thing, but there is a limitation on speech whereas expression is fairly open ended. By virtue of freedom of expression I suppose it is my right to express myself by walking nude through the halls of our public school systems. It is public property after all. And I would just be expressing myself. There are limitations of self expression to prevent stupid things such as this.
And I still stand by the fact that you are inflicting injury on the state of mind of people who look at the flag as a symbol of our country, something that they fought to defend. If you are an insensitive ass that can't see that perhaps you do need to have your ass beat for burning a flag after all. Some people only learn through negative reinforcment.
In regards to Vietnam vets wanting to burn the flag, I think Kyou's numbers here are way off. I grew up in a "military family" so to speak. I was supposed to be a 4th generation Marine but for me it wasn't right. My father was in Nam, and he suffered from nightmares until I was in my early teens. I can't imagine myself what it would be like to have been there an his or other soldiers situations. Does he have bad memories of his times there. Hell yes. He can still barely talk about it. Does he hate his country and want to burn his flag? Hell no. That flag means something to him. This country may make some mistakes, it is after all run by humans, but it is still where we call hoime?

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 2, 2003, 11:48 am

I dont even know why the people who are so opposed to flag burning try to politicize it so much. the only time it happens is when somebody talks about preventing it.

It's also comparable to how a certian segemnt of society will demonify a particular band. Marilyn Manson said everytime there was a demonstration in a a city he was touring, he would sell out in that town. He attributes much of his success to the people that gave hm free publicity

Of course, last week it was Marilyn Manson, who knows who it will be next week.

You raise an excellent point though. It's only as big an issue as you make it out to be.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 2, 2003, 12:54 pm

It can be argued that you don't have freedom of speech either anymore. Try making a joke about terrorism at an airport and see what happens. I promise you it wont be pretty.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 2, 2003, 12:56 pm

Kelshara wrote:It can be argued that you don't have freedom of speech either anymore. Try making a joke about terrorism at an airport and see what happens. I promise you it wont be pretty.

Good! why would you want to make a joke about that.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » May 2, 2003, 1:10 pm

I think that most people who burn the flag do it as a symbol of their dissatisfaction against the U.S. government. I don't consider the flag a symbol of the U.S. government (Maybe a bloody tampon). I see it as a symbol of the struggles that America has gone through and overcome, the blood shed by american soldiers, etc.

I am in the military and we really respect the flag. It is raised and lowered with respect. I don't own a flag personally because I don't believe I have the maturity level to treat it with the proper respect it deserves (i.e. taking it in and out every night). I hate seeing a frayed, tattered, and faded flag on someone's front porch. I see that as way more disrespectful than burning it.

Right after 9/11, my wife and I went to a city park to play tennis and someone had tied a flag to the fence and partially burned it. That really hurt me because we live in a very small town that doesn't see that very often. I took it down and dropped it off at the local VFW.

After saying all of that, I still believe that it is a person's right to burn the flag if they choose too. It hurts me to see it but I am all about everyone having the right to do and say what they want as long as it doesn't physically hurt another person.

People who are comparing it to cross burning are way off. Cross-burning's only purpose is too show hate towards a specific ethnic minority. It has no political motive or reason for doing so. It should be banned when done to intimidate people based on their ethnic heritage. Now if you want to go burn a cross on your own property as a middle finger to god then have fun. If you are doing it as part of your white brotherhood initiation ritual then get the fuck out.

Deward

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 2, 2003, 1:10 pm

It was just an example. There are quite a few limitations to the freedom of speech in society today.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » May 2, 2003, 2:00 pm

So what I was really looking for is someone less lazy than me to point out where in the constitution it says we have Freedom of expression.

By the way. Do you really want completely unmonitored/unregulated freedom of speech? Do you have any clue at all of what you are asking for?

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » May 2, 2003, 2:11 pm

Somali wrote:Do you really want completely unmonitored/unregulated freedom of speech?

Yes, but read below first.

The process of censorship is highly subjective and therefore should not be the right of the government. We have laws to protect people against libel and slander and regulations to try and keep certain materials out of the hands of children. Adults should be able to say what they want, but take responsibility when they either endanger a child or a court of law finds that they willingly caused hardship on another person by making false claims.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 2, 2003, 2:18 pm

Somali wrote:So what I was really looking for is someone less lazy than me to point out where in the constitution it says we have Freedom of expression.

By the way. Do you really want completely unmonitored/unregulated freedom of speech? Do you have any clue at all of what you are asking for?

the Constitution does not clearly specify what exactly is free speech. But it does clearly specify that no law may abridge that speech, and to that end it is in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court ultimately which will interpret legislation.

in this specific example (flag burning), the Supreme Court has determined that it is protected by the first amendment.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 2, 2003, 2:46 pm

Fesuni Chopsui wrote:As long as shitstains continue to have the right to own "arms" then I will continue to defend my right to burn a flag...end of story

Please clarify this statement. Do you think everyone that owns a gun is a "shitstain?"

Somali · Post by **Somali** » May 2, 2003, 3:10 pm

Lalanae,

So just to make sure I understand your point..
You don't want the government to censor people, yet you state that laws are in place to protect children. I am assuming that when you refer to these laws you are referring to laws that infringe upon freedom of speech. I also assume that these laws are not things that government created, because after all, the government can't make decisions on things that are controversial or open to interpretation. Perhaps these laws floated down from the heavens and made their way onto a document. Of course, since the government shouldn't censor people, if someone violates the magic laws, then they should be stoned to death by the surrounding public. After all, the government shouldn't intervene in this.

I believe this was concerning the law and an alteration to it. The grunds for such alteration to the current standing law is that burning the flag does cause emotional harm to a large portion of the country.

Vor,

Thanks for confirming for me that the constitution does not specifically refer to freedom of expression, but freedom of speech. I was really more making a point to those using speech and expression interchangeably, but in truth, the point is moot. The constitution was always intended as a living document, thats why our forefathers set up the processes to ammend it. They understood that people are not perfect and they themselves were people.
I peronally do not agree with flag burning for the simple fact that I believe it to be only one way of expressing disgust in the system. There are far less callous ways to express this disgust than burning a flag. Just because the flag is only cloth to you doesn't mean that it isn't more to someone else. How would you feel if someone snatched your childs favorite toy and set it on fire in front of their eyes. The flag is far more symbolic and important to a lot of people than a mere toy for a child, but I would assume that someone setting your childs toy on fire would set quite a few of you off. People protesting the burning of the flag are just asking for a similar level of repect.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 2, 2003, 3:25 pm

How would you feel if someone snatched your childs favorite toy and set it on fire in front of their eyes. The flag is far more symbolic and important to a lot of people than a mere toy for a child, but I would assume that someone setting your childs toy on fire would set quite a few of you off.

Horrible example. If someone burned my child's toy, they would be breaking the law and destroying my property. Now, if they bought thier own exact copy of my child's toy and burned in in effigy, then I really wouldn't give 2 shits since it has no effect on me at all.

You and others are assigning your personal belief system and values onto a national symbol. You need to realize that others do not place any value what-so-ever upon that same symbol. You cannot force your values onto anyone else.

I peronally do not agree with flag burning for the simple fact that I believe it to be only one way of expressing disgust in the system.

You're absolutely right. However, to many, it is the ultimate symbol of expression. Yes, some Americans are just that angry over what our country has done to them or their loved ones. I don't think anyone can deny the impact of seeing a bunch of old, disabled vets burning the American Flag. That's about as potent a visual message as a protester could hope to provide. Which, ya know, is the point of protesting and all.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » May 2, 2003, 3:30 pm

Your toy comparision would be valid if people were burning your (personal property) flag.

Would you be pissed of if someone bought the same toy as your child's and then destroyed it?

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 2, 2003, 3:37 pm

Your toy comparision would be valid if people were burning your (personal property) flag.

Would you be pissed of if someone bought the same toy as your child's and then destroyed it?

HaHa. Beat you to the punch, ya commie bastard!

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » May 2, 2003, 3:48 pm

You and others are assigning your personal belief system and values onto a national symbol. You need to realize that others do not place any value what-so-ever upon that same symbol. You cannot force your values onto anyone else.

So I can't force my respect for the flag on you, but you are free to force your disrespect for it on me?

It's a two-way street.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 2, 2003, 3:52 pm

Somali wrote:
Vor,

Thanks for confirming for me that the constitution does not specifically refer to freedom of expression, but freedom of speech. I was really more making a point to those using speech and expression interchangeably, but in truth, the point is moot. .

the Supreme Court determined that the act was "protected speech".

you are trying to create a semantic arguement that does not exist.

The Court considers more than just spoken and written words as 'speech'.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 2, 2003, 3:55 pm

So I can't force my respect for the flag on you, but you are free to force your disrespect for it on me?

That makes no sense. There is no forcing at all. You displaying the flag as you symbol of pride is the same as a person burning the flag as an example of discontent. There is no actual coercion in either instance.

Now, if someone tried to pass a law that you could not display your flag, you would be closer to the moral of the story.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » May 2, 2003, 3:59 pm

I think the fundamental difference is that for those that see the flag as a symbol, a flag is something that belongs to all of us. It is fairly well accepted that the flag is a symbol of our country and/or the men that gave their lives to "protect" it. Just because you do not believe that, does not mean that you are not inflicting injury on those that do. Let me also clarify that I do not myself feel injured when I see someone burn a flag. I simply feel that these people are ignorant of how it affects many "good people." Just to make sure you flag burners out there don't misunderstand, if you didn't consider the fact that it has a negative affect on people who respect the flag and see it is a symbol of the men who gave their lives for "our freedom," then shame on you for not being considerate of others emotions. If you burn it knowing that it hurts others, and knowing that there are other perfectly valid ways to show disgust in the country, then you sir, are an asshole. Albeit one within his rights as they currently stand.
Let me also state I think it is healthy for people to protest and express their views when they think the government makes a mistake (which we do a lot). I simply believe that the way we do that should show consideration for those in our community.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » May 2, 2003, 4:22 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
Your toy comparision would be valid if people were burning your (personal property) flag.

Would you be pissed of if someone bought the same toy as your child's and then destroyed it?
HaHa. Beat you to the punch, ya commie bastard!

Fucker! God damn work slowing down my posting.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » May 2, 2003, 4:24 pm

Vetiria wrote:
Fesuni Chopsui wrote:As long as shitstains continue to have the right to own "arms" then I will continue to defend my right to burn a flag...end of story
Please clarify this statement. Do you think everyone that owns a gun is a "shitstain?"

Anyone who owns gun and argues that they have a right to own a gun to "protect" themselves are morons and I have no respect for them and their small brains...the only people in this country who should be allowed to own a gun are police officers and military personnel...if you banned citizens from owning guns in this country I would guess around 60% of the deadly shooting in this country would cease to be...and let's not forget that this country has the largest number of gun owning citizens than any other and the highest crime rate than any other (Go Michael Moore! Although he is a fat piece of shit who lets blind liberalism get to his head, his stats are quite right)

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 2, 2003, 4:28 pm

Fesuni Chopsui wrote:
Vetiria wrote:
Fesuni Chopsui wrote:As long as shitstains continue to have the right to own "arms" then I will continue to defend my right to burn a flag...end of story
Please clarify this statement. Do you think everyone that owns a gun is a "shitstain?"
Anyone who owns gun and argues that they have a right to own a gun to "protect" themselves are morons and I have no respect for them and their small brains...the only people in this country who should be allowed to own a gun are police officers and military personnel...if you banned citizens from owning guns in this country I would guess around 60% of the deadly shooting in this country would cease to be...and let's not forget that this country has the largest number of gun owning citizens than any other and the highest crime rate than any other (Go Michael Moore! Although he is a fat piece of shit who lets blind liberalism get to his head, his stats are quite right)

Damn I got to go back to Bow Hunting?

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 2, 2003, 4:30 pm

Fesuni Chopsui wrote:
Vetiria wrote:
Fesuni Chopsui wrote:As long as shitstains continue to have the right to own "arms" then I will continue to defend my right to burn a flag...end of story
Please clarify this statement. Do you think everyone that owns a gun is a "shitstain?"
Anyone who owns gun and argues that they have a right to own a gun to "protect" themselves are morons and I have no respect for them and their small brains...the only people in this country who should be allowed to own a gun are police officers and military personnel...if you banned citizens from owning guns in this country I would guess around 60% of the deadly shooting in this country would cease to be...and let's not forget that this country has the largest number of gun owning citizens than any other and the highest crime rate than any other (Go Michael Moore! Although he is a fat piece of shit who lets blind liberalism get to his head, his stats are quite right)

Have you read the 2nd Amendment?

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 2, 2003, 4:31 pm

I sense a huge fucking thread derail incoming...

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » May 2, 2003, 4:40 pm

Vetiria wrote:
Fesuni Chopsui wrote:
Vetiria wrote:
Fesuni Chopsui wrote:As long as shitstains continue to have the right to own "arms" then I will continue to defend my right to burn a flag...end of story
Please clarify this statement. Do you think everyone that owns a gun is a "shitstain?"
Anyone who owns gun and argues that they have a right to own a gun to "protect" themselves are morons and I have no respect for them and their small brains...the only people in this country who should be allowed to own a gun are police officers and military personnel...if you banned citizens from owning guns in this country I would guess around 60% of the deadly shooting in this country would cease to be...and let's not forget that this country has the largest number of gun owning citizens than any other and the highest crime rate than any other (Go Michael Moore! Although he is a fat piece of shit who lets blind liberalism get to his head, his stats are quite right)
Have you read the 2nd Amendment?

Have you read my post? I never said they did not HAVE the right to own a gun, I said they SHOULD not have the right to own guns

Somali · Post by **Somali** » May 2, 2003, 4:40 pm

Pfft.
Vor,

You done went and took asentence out of context j00 bastad.

If you follow through with the rest of that, you see that I stated the point was moot and that a benefit to the constitution was it being a living document with the ability to ammend and chage it. The SC making a judgement that Flag burning is entitled by free speech is such a change. Not allowing it under free speech is still such a change.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 2, 2003, 4:50 pm

Fesuni Chopsui wrote:I never said they did not HAVE the right to own a gun, I said they SHOULD not have the right to own guys

Freudian slip, methinks...

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » May 2, 2003, 4:51 pm

Bah you bastard, you looked before I could edit it!

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » May 2, 2003, 4:55 pm

Somali wrote:Lalanae,

So just to make sure I understand your point..
You don't want the government to censor people, yet you state that laws are in place to protect children. I am assuming that when you refer to these laws you are referring to laws that infringe upon freedom of speech. I also assume that these laws are not things that government created, because after all, the government can't make decisions on things that are controversial or open to interpretation. Perhaps these laws floated down from the heavens and made their way onto a document. Of course, since the government shouldn't censor people, if someone violates the magic laws, then they should be stoned to death by the surrounding public. After all, the government shouldn't intervene in this.

Can you read at all? Here let me spell it out more for you. Free speech is not acceptable ONLY

1) When it violates the wellbeing of a child. Adults are capable of dealing with mature subject matter such as pornography. Children are not. The law should prevent any person from WILLINGLY exposing children to materials of a sexual nature. It is up to parents to monitor their children's exposure to violence and sexuality on TV, but distributing pornographic leaflets to children is criminal.

2) When the speech is proved to be false and causing hardship to a person IN A COURT OF LAW. Thats where libel and slander come in. You can't sue someone for saying something about you or saying something that offends you unless you can prove that 1) it is false 2) it has created some kind of hardship, usually financial.

Neither one of these involve censorship so your weak attempt to catch me in some contradiction failed. Next time try applying a little thought first.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » May 2, 2003, 5:20 pm

Well assuming you all want to make free speech a matter of self expression then you are obviously going to alter free speech in point 1. Perhaps you have some hippee that believes children should know that people don't need clothes and should live in some nekkid commune.
If you don't allow him to frolic around nekkid near childern to express his point you are hampering his freedom of speech.
You do have a contradiction. feh.
If you want the government to enforce this you are giving the goovernment the right to "censor" this individuals right to express himself, but only to children. I believe most communities have regulations about public displays of nudity. Assuming you don't want to see Mr Ugly walking through the mall all nekkid, you would be promoting censorship of his right to express himself as well.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » May 2, 2003, 5:37 pm

Somali wrote:Well assuming you all want to make free speech a matter of self expression then you are obviously going to alter free speech in point 1. Perhaps you have some hippee that believes children should know that people don't need clothes and should live in some nekkid commune.
If you don't allow him to frolic around nekkid near childern to express his point you are hampering his freedom of speech.
You do have a contradiction. feh.
If you want the government to enforce this you are giving the goovernment the right to "censor" this individuals right to express himself, but only to children. I believe most communities have regulations about public displays of nudity. Assuming you don't want to see Mr Ugly walking through the mall all nekkid, you would be promoting censorship of his right to express himself as well.

No contradiction. There is nothing inherently worng with nudity and that would be the parents choice to live in a nudist colony.

As far as people walking around naked in non-nudist places, or exposing himself to children, because it eliminates a parent's choice should be illegal.

The law comes into play when the child is endangered. Seeing naked people does NOT endanger the well being of a child provided it is not in an antagonizing or sexual way. Seeing a naked man fondling himself or attempting to fondle a child is sexual abuse. A naked man playing golf is not.

Try again.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » May 2, 2003, 5:40 pm

Basically when it comes down to it, I would largely agree with you, Lala, on your view of censorship. I am not a mass proponent of censorship myself. I simply like playing Devils advocate. Especially for people who like to talk in circles in their arguments. Why is it that you get to determine where the censorship should take place Lala? I myself am more of the opinion that if someone is enough of a social reject to need censorship, then things manage to work themselves out on their own. Does that make my view the right one? No. Similarly, what you would like to see from censoring peoples expressions is no more right or wrong. Sometimes censorship is put in place to help people that don't realize that certain expressions of freedoms may lead to a bad outcome for their personal being. Other times it is done to mold the way the public thinks.

I'd like to think we could have a society that didn't need censorship to avoid disrespecting or injuring somepone emotionally or physically, but the again we are merely human. I doubt that world would ever exhist.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » May 2, 2003, 5:46 pm

No contradiction. There is nothing inherently worng with nudity and that would be the parents choice to live in a nudist colony.

As far as people walking around naked in non-nudist places, or exposing himself to children, because it eliminates a parent's choice should be illegal.

Can you make your freaking mind up. What exactly do you think you are doing when you tell a nudist that it is ok to do this within these confines.. But don't dare do it around my child....

I doubt many people talking against flag burning would have problem with you doing it if you took the flag down, and went inside to burn it in your oven. Then again, without the public its not much of an expression is it?

I am going to also assume that since you didn't comment on Mr Obeise walking nekkid through the mall then this doesn't bother you? More power to you if thats the case. I want him censored cause I certainly don't want to see him.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » May 2, 2003, 6:07 pm

Do you understand the difference between adult & children?? Do you understand how the law differs for both??

When something is not INTRINSICALLY harmful to a child (like nudity) it falls under parental rights
Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Its VERY simple.

and I did address your mall-walker stupid. READ AGAIN

As far as people walking around naked in non-nudist places, or exposing himself to children, because it eliminates a parent's choice should be illegal.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » May 5, 2003, 11:19 am

oooh. So now we can't adress what I said, so instead we have taken to calling people stupid. What an intellectual way to go about an argument.
What I addressed is that by limiting a nudist to a nudist colony you are in fact limiting his ability to express himself. The fact that you say it is to protect children is YOUR opinion. Why is it that you are the one to make this choice? What makes you the one who is right? YOU are censoring this individual. Just because you say it protects children does not make it any less of a censorship. You ARE promoting CENSORSHIP. YOU are just doing it within the confines that you believe are proper.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 5, 2003, 11:42 am

Somali wrote:oooh. So now we can't adress what I said, so instead we have taken to calling people stupid. What an intellectual way to go about an argument.
What I addressed is that by limiting a nudist to a nudist colony you are in fact limiting his ability to express himself. The fact that you say it is to protect children is YOUR opinion. Why is it that you are the one to make this choice? What makes you the one who is right? YOU are censoring this individual. Just because you say it protects children does not make it any less of a censorship. You ARE promoting CENSORSHIP. YOU are just doing it within the confines that you believe are proper.

Dont Worry Somali Thats her MO

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » May 5, 2003, 1:02 pm

Somali wrote:oooh. So now we can't adress what I said, so instead we have taken to calling people stupid. What an intellectual way to go about an argument.
What I addressed is that by limiting a nudist to a nudist colony you are in fact limiting his ability to express himself. The fact that you say it is to protect children is YOUR opinion. Why is it that you are the one to make this choice? What makes you the one who is right? YOU are censoring this individual. Just because you say it protects children does not make it any less of a censorship. You ARE promoting CENSORSHIP. YOU are just doing it within the confines that you believe are proper.

I believe her argument, if you re-read her posts, is that the nudist taking his belief public is forcing it on others, removing their freedom of choice. It's not a judgement on the person for being a nudist. The same would apply to a person going into a nudist colony and being clothed, forcing their belief on the nudists (this is theory, I dunno if nudist colonies would actually have a problem with that).

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » May 5, 2003, 2:13 pm

From the same code that prohibits the burning of the flag:

(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.

But ya see it all the time...
From used car sales on TV...to bumper stickers selling a war...to decals on business windows leaching off the emotions drawn by 9/11 with slogans like "Never Forget" (insert subtext - we're patriotic and you should really buy from us).

Worse than burning it, imo.

http://www.legion.org/our_flag/of_flag_ ... ilians.htm

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 5, 2003, 2:49 pm

The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever.

My friend and I were watching the news and it showed someone burning the US flag. He immediatly exclaimed "I can't believe they're burning the Ralph Lauren corporate logo!".

I've always thought that whoring the flag out for advertising was in poor taste. I'm curious what anti-flag burners feel now that they have some new input. I assume that part of the code will have little or no meaning to them.

It must be easy on the conscience to be able to pick and choose what parts of a code to believe in. /shrug

Somali · Post by **Somali** » May 5, 2003, 3:33 pm

I know that the military was unbelievably meticulous with its regulations on the flag so I assume that is what we are referring to.
In truth, I would agree that it is poor taste to use the flag as a method of selling a product.

I believe her argument, if you re-read her posts, is that the nudist taking his belief public is forcing it on others, removing their freedom of choice. It's not a judgement on the person for being a nudist. The same would apply to a person going into a nudist colony and being clothed, forcing their belief on the nudists (this is theory, I dunno if nudist colonies would actually have a problem with that).

Are we talking about abortion in this forum or are we talking about censorship? Regardless of how you look at it. Taking away a persons ability to express himself in public is in fact censoring them. I for one like the fact that we censor people and restrict them from public displays of nudity, but it is in fact a form of censorship. Stay on topic or get out of the debate. Although if we want to argue your point, people in a public area where a flag is being burned have the same options as those exposed to public nudity. Close their eyes. (Notice I did not say children here. I don't care to see public displays of nudity either.)

I saw what she was attempting to argue, but it was an invalid argument. She was attempting to show you that censorship was only valid if it had limitations. Ok thats fine. I agree. But if you want to argue that point, you must accept that not everyone will agree on the exceptions to the rule that you want. What this was about was a thread about how we censor and if it should change. That trnasgressed into a " Censorship is bad, mmmkay!" thread. I was disporving that said censorship was bad. Censorship is a "needed" component of our environment.

Beyond that.. I found it amusing debating with Lalalalala. After all it seemed like thats what she was saying.. "lalalalalalalala" just flittering around attempting to make arguments that really only skimmed on the subject at hand. Then again, I'll give her credit and say that she was arguing for the sake of post count, which admittedly had to do a little with me beating a dead horse.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » May 5, 2003, 5:40 pm

The people in my office are hugely pro-canadian. There's a guy in my office that REALLY likes to piss peple off and stir shit up and put up an american flag in his office.

One of his friends(not another employee) walked into the office, saw the flag, dropped his pants and wiped his ass with it...

Actions of this type (burning/desecrating) are more powerful statements that most of the morons that pose them believe.

I take flag burning as a statement that everything out of that country is bad and that they should be eliminated and that they are not worthy of anyone's respect. It's my opinion that every nation on the planet has something worthwhile to offer. You just have to look over disagreements and find that common ground.

VeeshanVault

Should flag burning be illegal?

Should flag burning be illegal (in the US)?