Flag Desecration Banned In Iberville Parish

[Green Arrow]

Via WAFB (http://www.wafb.com/story/36544830/iberville-parish-city-council-unanimously-votes-to-outlaw-desecration-of-flag):


The Iberville Parish City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night on an ordinance to outlaw desecration of the flag.

The ordinance will protect the American flag, the Louisiana state flag, and any official flags of Iberville Parish. Council members say this law will apply to unincorporated parts of the parish.

The chairman of the council says there was no public opposition to the law.

Penalties range from a $1,000 fine to a 6-month jail sentence, or both.

I'm opposed to this law on the grounds that it is ridiculous and a violation of the First Amendment. I had thought this sort of thing was settled by Texas v. Johnson (1989). Thoughts, DGUtley?

[resister]

Good, if you burn the flag, go move to a third world country and burn their flag. Instead of a fine, you would likely have a shallow grave.

[Green Arrow]

Good, if you burn the flag, go move to a third world country and burn their flag. Instead of a fine, you would likely have a shallow grave.

One of the great things about America is that you are free to express your views/complaints however you see fit, as long as it doesn't cause harm to another person. The mere suggestion that you "go move to a third world country" rather than freely express yourself here is un-American.

[DGUtley]

As despicable as I may personally find it, that is precisely why it is the most offensive of speech that is the most deserving of protection. It is protected speech and this ordinance is unconstitutional.

[resister]

One of the great things about America is that you are free to express your views/complaints however you see fit, as long as it doesn't cause harm to another person. The mere suggestion that you "go move to a third world country" rather than freely express yourself here is un-American.
If you are unsatisfied with the US, you are free to leave.

[Captain Obvious]

If you are unsatisfied with the US, you are free to leave.

It doesn't have anything to do with being dissatisfied with being here, it's has everything to do with our constitutionally protected right to protest.

I wholly disagree with laws banning flag burning.

It's no different than banning the confederate flag.

[nic34]

One of the great things about America is that you are free to express your views/complaints however you see fit, as long as it doesn't cause harm to another person. The mere suggestion that you "go move to a third world country" rather than freely express yourself here is un-American.

Reminiscent of America love it or leave it stickers.

[resister]

It doesn't have anything to do with being dissatisfied with being here, it's has everything to do with our constitutionally protected right to protest.

I wholly disagree with laws banning flag burning.

It's no different than banning the confederate flag.
My opinion is, if you enjoy the freedoms and benefits of being a US citizen (or illegal alien) you should show some respect or go live elsewhere and see what life is like.

Maybe go to NK and burn their flag in the street and see how that works.

[Green Arrow]

As despicable as I may personally find it, that is precisely why it is the most offensive of speech that is the most deserving of protection. It is protected speech and this ordinance is unconstitutional.

The ACLU is getting involved, so I suspect it will go to court and get struck down.

[Green Arrow]

If you are unsatisfied with the US, you are free to leave.

I’m also free to stay and fight for the changes I believe are necessary.

[MisterVeritis]

Good, if you burn the flag, go move to a third world country and burn their flag. Instead of a fine, you would likely have a shallow grave.
Desecrating the flag is political speech.

[resister]

I’m also free to stay and fight for the changes I believe are necessary.
Sure you are, but speech has consequences.

[resister]

Desecrating the flag is political speech.
I guess, but I think it is more of a physical action.

[MisterVeritis]

Sure you are, but speech has consequences.
If you choose to break laws because someone exercises political speech it is on you, not on the speaker.

[MisterVeritis]

I guess, but I think it is more of a physical action.
Whatever you believe flag desecration is political speech. It is rightly protected expression.

[resister]

If you choose to break laws because someone exercises political speech it is on you, not on the speaker.
Who said it would break the law? Maybe doxing on social media.

[resister]

Whatever you believe flag desecration is political speech. It is rightly protected expression.Since my family tree contains descendants that fought and died in damn near every war, it disgusts me.

[Private Pickle]

Via WAFB (http://www.wafb.com/story/36544830/iberville-parish-city-council-unanimously-votes-to-outlaw-desecration-of-flag):



I'm opposed to this law on the grounds that it is ridiculous and a violation of the First Amendment. I had thought this sort of thing was settled by Texas v. Johnson (1989). Thoughts, @DGUtley (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2019)?

Unconstitutional.

[Green Arrow]

Since my family tree contains descendants that fought and died in damn near every war, it disgusts me.
That’s fine. You have a right to be disgusted. You do not have a right to ban it, however, and neither does Iberville Parish.

[Private Pickle]

Since my family tree contains descendants that fought and died in damn near every war, it disgusts me.

All the more reason to respect the rights they died for..

[MisterVeritis]

Since my family tree contains descendants that fought and died in damn near every war, it disgusts me.
While interesting your disgust is not relevant.

[resister]

All the more reason to respect the rights they died for..
Burning what they fought for is not "respect".

[resister]

While interesting your disgust is not relevant.
I guess that gives my opinion and yours, something in common.

[jimmyz]

My opinion is, if you enjoy the freedoms and benefits of being a US citizen (or illegal alien) you should show some respect or go live elsewhere and see what life is like.

Maybe go to NK and burn their flag in the street and see how that works.

With respect, what if a group decided to burn a rainbow flag, a Dale Earnhardt flag or an I love puppies flag? Where do delineate the boundaries of what is OK per our Constitution? We have to protect all flag burners no matter how repulsive.

[Perianne]

Thank you, resister, for your stance.

[jimmyz]

My opinion is, if you enjoy the freedoms and benefits of being a US citizen (or illegal alien) you should show some respect or go live elsewhere and see what life is like.

Maybe go to NK and burn their flag in the street and see how that works.

You and me have the freedom to NOT attend a flag burning and upon returning to our home erecting our flag upon the flag pole. A counter to the offense we feel and expression of our guaranteed rights. I get your feeling though, and share your indignation at the sight of a US flag being burned.

[resister]

With respect, what if a group decided to burn a rainbow flag, a Dale Earnhardt flag or an I love puppies flag? Where do delineate the boundaries of what is OK per our Constitution? We have to protect all flag burners no matter how repulsive.
I don't have to respect them, just not put my hands on them or otherwise break the law. When I see a burning flag, I think of muslims. They are the most common, desecrators.

[jimmyz]

I don't have to respect them, just not put my hands on them or otherwise break the law. When I see a burning flag, I think of muslims. They are the most common, desecrators.

Then you are following the Constitution in observing their rights and obeying the law by NOT putting your hands on them. We which is you and me cannot invent a reaction against those that we dont agree with because it pisses us off. The ideal makes no distinction between us and them. The ideal covers us ALL It is part of what makes us the US. You are gallant in your defense of the flag and its preservation whole. Look away and honor your own belief as counter to them.

[MisterVeritis]

Thank you, @resister (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2122), for your stance.
Absolutely. Wrong though it may be. :laugh:

[Perianne]

20535

[MisterVeritis]

20535
lol.

[jimmyz]

20535

He had the worst looking ears. lol Probably was in contact sports like wrestling. Great actor though.

[Perianne]

He was great in Breaking Bad. I remember when he got shot in the ear. It didn't make his ear look any worse.

[jimmyz]

20535

I would want you with me on the wall at the Alamo. You would probably save my life and take 50 of them.

[Captain Obvious]

I would want you with me on the wall at the Alamo. You would probably save my life and take 50 of them.

Peri - just don't sample the popcorn bucket in his lap

:biglaugh:

[Newpublius]

As despicable as I may personally find it, that is precisely why it is the most offensive of speech that is the most deserving of protection. It is protected speech and this ordinance is unconstitutional.
Although they apparently also banned baggy pants.

http://www.nola.com/news/baton-rouge/index.ssf/2014/03/iberville_parish_councils_ordi.html

Maybe these people are onto something.

(sometimes these local yokels are amazing, aren't they?)

[resister]

Peri - just don't sample the popcorn bucket in his lap

:biglaugh:
Once, when I was in prison...never mind. Just suffice it to say, don't reach in a paper bag held near the groin! I don't care how many honey buns are in the deal!:roflmao:

[Perianne]

Although they apparently also banned baggy pants.

http://www.nola.com/news/baton-rouge/index.ssf/2014/03/iberville_parish_councils_ordi.html

Maybe these people are onto something.

(sometimes these local yokels are amazing, aren't they?)

Someone will argue wearing baggy pants is protected speech.

[resister]

Someone will argue wearing baggy pants is protected speech.
I don't get calling a physical action "speech" Like calling a gun a verb "assault" rifle.

[jimmyz]

Peri - just don't sample the popcorn bucket in his lap

:biglaugh:

Bethere told me that his bucket obscured his target lol

j/k Bethere.

[Perianne]

I don't get calling a physical action "speech" Like calling a gun a verb "assault" rifle.
SCOTUS said it is protected speech. They also said the Constitution provides for abortion. And Obamacare. And on and on. It is apparently a living Constitution.

[Captain Obvious]

Someone will argue wearing baggy pants is protected speech.

I don't know about the free speech angle, don't care either but I do know that if someone banned confederate flag tee shirts trailer trash America would riot.

[Private Pickle]

Burning what they fought for is not "respect".
Freedom isn't found in a piece of cloth.

[jimmyz]

Once, when I was in prison...never mind. Just suffice it to say, don't reach in a paper bag held near the groin! I don't care how many honey buns are in the deal!:roflmao:

Honey buns are one of my road trip guilty pleasures. YUM! Unless there is a Cinabon in the truck stop.

[resister]

Freedom isn't found in a piece of cloth.
Never said it was. Nor is freedom found in burning cloth.

[Tahuyaman]

You can make your point without burning the flag. People do that with the intent to anger others.

[resister]

Honey buns are one of my road trip guilty pleasures. YUM! Unless there is a Cinabon in the truck stop.
Just remember, no paper bags near the groin. The entire dorm laughed for days. I was not involved, for real!

[Green Arrow]

You can make your point without burning the flag. People do that with the intent to anger others.
Sure. You also can’t ban someone from burning the flag.

[resister]

You can make your point without burning the flag. People do that with the intent to anger others.Exactly, that is the entire point!

[jimmyz]

Just remember, no paper bags near the groin. The entire dorm laughed for days. I was not involved, for real!

You should post your best recipes from the joint in a thread. I used to put money on a family members commissary and heard that the concoctions are quite tasty and to be shared.

[resister]

Sure. You also can’t ban someone from burning the flag.
When you poke a hornets nest, get ready for stings.

[jimmyz]

Exactly, that is the entire point!

I wish we were so blessed to live in such a civil society. Dont suffer fools is what I believe.... or else I might do violence if I was not such a lovable cactus.

[Green Arrow]

When you poke a hornets nest, get ready for stings.

Those stings would be illegal. The flag burner would be free and you would be in jail. Over cloth.

[Captain Obvious]

I wish we were so blessed to live in such a civil society. Dont suffer fools is what I believe.... or else I might do violence if I was not such a lovable cactus.

With or without that bag of Cinnibon?

[jimmyz]

With or without that bag of Cinnibon?

I do share before I stab.

[resister]

Those stings would be illegal. The flag burner would be free and you would be in jail. Over cloth.
Did not say I would sting. Remember when white nationalist speak, SJW's remind us that free Speech has consequences, like elections.

[Private Pickle]

Never said it was. Nor is freedom found in burning cloth.
Sure it is. It's a statement.

[resister]

Sure it is. It's a statement.
People have the freedom to do it, I have the freedom to condemn it.

[Private Pickle]

People have the freedom to do it, I have the freedom to condemn it.
Correct. I'm glad you've come around.

[DGUtley]

People have the freedom to do it, I have the freedom to condemn it.

Condemn away. Stand there and protest it (I'll probably be there with you); while at the same time being a little proud that you live a country that gives everyone the right to express themselves politically even if you disagree with the message and method of said expression.

[nic34]

You can make your point without burning the flag. People do that with the intent to anger others.

Or to properly destroy an old flag. Many people don't even know how to display a flag or when or how to destroy an old tattered flag.
Makes me mad when I see so called patriots not understand flag Etiquette.

[nic34]

http://www.military.com/flag-day/flag-ettiquette-dos-and-donts.html

[Perianne]

GRRRRRRRRRRRR! to this thread!!!

Burning the American flag is wrong, wrong, wrong. I don't give a *%&^$&^# what the SCOTUS said.

[Fredy]

^
Making America Great Again

[resister]

^
Making America Great Again
Making TPF great again^

[Tahuyaman]

Sure. You also can’t ban someone from burning the flag.

why would anyone think burning the flag is a way to address a grievance against our legislators or president?

[Tahuyaman]

Or to properly destroy an old flag. Many people don't even know how to display a flag or when or how to destroy an old tattered flag.
Makes me mad when I see so called patriots not understand flag Etiquette.. Burning a tattered flag in the proper place is not the issue here genius.

[MisterVeritis]

Burning what they fought for is not "respect".
True. But it is protected speech and ought to be.

The First Amendment protections were aimed specifically at political speech. Honor the flag and anthem, as I do. Equally, honor the Constitution as well.

[MisterVeritis]

I guess that gives my opinion and yours, something in common.
Your disgust is not relevant. Your opinion that desecrating the flag is disgusting is perfectly valid. It in no way changes the nature of the freedom to make political statements, including unpopular political statements.

[Tahuyaman]

Burn a rainbow flag and the prancing ponies would go apoplectic.

[MisterVeritis]

You can make your point without burning the flag. People do that with the intent to anger others.
You can also make your point by burning the flag.

[Tahuyaman]

Burning a flag is not speech. It is a form of expression. A form of expression intended to anger others and provoke a violent reaction.

[Tahuyaman]

You can also make your point by burning the flag.
And what point would that be?

[MisterVeritis]

And what point would that be?
Whatever point the flag burner is making.

[Standing Wolf]

I'm opposed to this law on the grounds that it is ridiculous and a violation of the First Amendment. I had thought this sort of thing was settled by Texas v. Johnson (1989). Thoughts, @DGUtley (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2019)?

State legislators are also fond of banning or restricting things that the courts have long ago determined governments were not constitutionally able to ban or restrict. Obviously, they do it for purely political reasons - to pander to an uneducated or uncaring constituency - and they sometimes spend a lot of money doing so. This is a good example of why elected politicians, even the lawyers, have got to be reined in by the courts when things like this are allowed to happen. People who don't understand the courts' role in putting a stop to stupid, unconstitutional laws and ordinances that are doomed from their inception are going to say that it's a violation of the peoples' right to govern themselves, or that it's judges "legislating from the bench", or some other nonsense. They would let such laws and local ordinances stand until others could be elected to reverse them - which might take years or even decades.

[Tahuyaman]

Whatever point the flag burner is making. Brilliant!

[MisterVeritis]

Brilliant!
I know. It is my nature to be brilliant.

[Perianne]

...Obviously, they do it for purely political reasons - to pander to an uneducated or uncaring constituency...

I am neither of those. I simply feel the SCOTUS overreached on this one....as they often do.

[Green Arrow]

Burning a flag is not speech. It is a form of expression. A form of expression intended to anger others and provoke a violent reaction.

And that expression is protected by the constitution.

[Standing Wolf]

I am neither of those. I simply feel the SCOTUS overreached on this one....as they often do.

Should there be a law that says I can't burn my own copy of the Constitution? A lot of people feel very strongly about the Bible; should there be a law against desecrating that?

Speaking only for myself, I served my country in uniform for more than two decades, and continue to serve in another capacity to this day, and burning an American flag is one of the last things I, personally, would ever do. However, it's the freedom of belief, conscience and expression, of being and remaining free citizens, that we have - at least in theory - always fought for...not pieces of cloth or paper. Those physical things only represent what we value; what we actually value cannot be burned.

[Abby08]

I don't see how burning the flag in protest, is productive.

Personally, I see it as an insult to the country in which you live and, that affords you so many freedoms....yes, your choice to burn the flag is one of those ' freedoms'.....but, why? Why show your displeasure in something, in that way?

Personally, I see it as disrespect and, hatred of the country.....I feel, if you dislike it here that much, there ARE other places you can live...... Iran, for instance, they're always burning our flag, it seems, you'd fit right in, probably welcomed with open arms.

[MisterVeritis]

I don't see how burning the flag in protest, is productive.

Personally, I see it as an insult to the country in which you live and, that affords you so many freedoms....yes, your choice to burn the flag is one of those ' freedoms'.....but, why? Why show your displeasure in something, in that way?

Personally, I see it as disrespect and, hatred of the country.....I feel, if you dislike it here that much, there ARE other places you can live...... Iran, for instance, they're always burning our flag, it seems, you'd fit right in, probably welcomed with open arms.
Should we have a law that makes it criminal to criticize your government?

[Green Arrow]

I don't see how burning the flag in protest, is productive.

Personally, I see it as an insult to the country in which you live and, that affords you so many freedoms....yes, your choice to burn the flag is one of those ' freedoms'.....but, why? Why show your displeasure in something, in that way?

Personally, I see it as disrespect and, hatred of the country.....I feel, if you dislike it here that much, there ARE other places you can live...... Iran, for instance, they're always burning our flag, it seems, you'd fit right in, probably welcomed with open arms.

It seems to me that you are the one that has a problem with this country. Approving speech or expression you disagree with is the essence of Americanism.

[Tahuyaman]

I know. It is my nature to be brilliant.
That's your biggest mistake. Brilliance is not something generally associated with you here.

[MisterVeritis]

That's your biggest mistake. Brilliance is not something generally associated with you here.
Right. 'tis no mistake. This can be the last word.

[Tahuyaman]

Should we have a law that makes it criminal to criticize your government?
One needs to anger others and incite violence in order to criticize government policy?

[MisterVeritis]

One needs to anger others and incite violence in order to criticize government policy?
That is your interpretation. If you are incited to violence by a flag burning you are wound way too tight.

[Tahuyaman]

And that expression is protected by the constitution.. Expression only intended to incite violence is not. It's the equivalent of the proverbial
yelling fire in a theater.

[Green Arrow]

. Expression only intended to incite violence is not. It's the equivalent of the proverbial
yelling fire in a theater.

We’re not talking about that, though.

[Tahuyaman]

That is your interpretation. If you are incited to violence by a flag burning you are wound way too tight.
Not hardly.

Still, you are one to talk. You routinely advocate killing people you disagree with on political issues. You seem to be a hypocrite on that one.

[MisterVeritis]

Not hardly.

Still, you are one to talk. You routinely advocate killing people you disagree with on political issues. You seem to be a hypocrite on that one.
No. I advocate the state kill people who have greatly harmed the nation. Crooked Hillary, for example, has greatly harmed the nation, setting HUMINT back at least 20 years.
I also believe that when the law itself becomes an instrument of tyranny it is up to the people to mete out justice.

I do give you credit for the deflection. I rate it a 6 out of a possible 10.

[Tahuyaman]

You routinely advocate killing people you disagree with. That's not a defection.

[Tahuyaman]

. Expression only intended to incite violence is not. It's the equivalent of the proverbial
yelling fire in a theater.


We’re not talking about that, though.

Yes we are.

[MisterVeritis]

You routinely advocate killing people you disagree with. That's not a defection.
You only get to deflect once. You have already done so.

[Green Arrow]

Yes we are.

No, we’re talking about people that burn the flag to make a political statement.

[Tahuyaman]

. Expression only intended to incite violence is not. It's the equivalent of the proverbial
yelling fire in a theater.


No, we’re talking about people that burn the flag to make a political statement.
They are trying to anger and outrage people, not address a grievance. They hope to incite violence against them so they can have more to complain about.

They know that their actions immediately cause most people to dismiss them as bitter malcontents.

[MisterVeritis]

They are trying to anger and outrage people, not address a grievance. They hope to incite violence against them so they can have more to complain about.

They know that their actions immediately cause most people to diemidd them as bitter malcontents.
Political speech can be like that. Shall we make a law so that criticizing the government is a criminal offense?

[Green Arrow]

They are trying to anger and outrage people, not address a grievance. They hope to incite violence against them so they can have more to complain about.

They know that their actions immediately cause most people to dismiss them as bitter malcontents.

That’s your opinion, but unless you can prove that is their motive you have no case and it’s protected.

[Tahuyaman]

You only get to deflect once. You have already done so.. You are dismissed.

[Green Arrow]

. You are dismissed.
You don’t have the right to dismiss anyone. Stick to the topic or you will be dismissed.

[MisterVeritis]

You only get to deflect once. You have already done so.

. You are dismissed.
LOL.

[Tahuyaman]

That’s your opinion, but unless you can prove that is their motive you have no case and it’s protected.


You will always defend the indefensible.

[Green Arrow]

You will always defend the indefensible.

Someone has to. If I don’t defend their rights, how can I expect anyone to defend mine?

[Tahuyaman]

One can protest against government without angering people who may be sympathetic to their cause. Burning a flag does not motivate a president or legislators to examine or change any laws or policies.

[MisterVeritis]

You will always defend the indefensible.
I do sometimes wonder how you end up on the wrong side of important issues.

[Green Arrow]

One can protest against government without angering people who may be sympathetic to their cause. Burning a flag does not motivate a president or legislators to examine or change any laws or policies.

Actually, no you can’t. Protests by their very nature piss people off.

[MisterVeritis]

One can protest against government without angering people who may be sympathetic to their cause. Burning a flag does not motivate a president or legislators to examine or change any laws or policies.
If that is your belief then don't burn the flag.

[Perianne]

Should there be a law that says I can't burn my own copy of the Constitution? A lot of people feel very strongly about the Bible; should there be a law against desecrating that?

Speaking only for myself, I served my country in uniform for more than two decades, and continue to serve in another capacity to this day, and burning an American flag is one of the last things I, personally, would ever do. However, it's the freedom of belief, conscience and expression, of being and remaining free citizens, that we have - at least in theory - always fought for...not pieces of cloth or paper. Those physical things only represent what we value; what we actually value cannot be burned.
@Standing Wolf (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1791), I appreciate your well-written dissent. Good, intelligent people can disagree.

I read the arguments in the Texas v. Johnson case. I agree with Justice John Paul Stevens:


Stevens argued that the flag "is more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and the gifts of nature that transformed 13 fledgling Colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of good will for other peoples who share our aspirations. ... The value of the flag as a symbol cannot be measured." Stevens concluded, therefore, that "The case has nothing to do with 'disagreeable ideas.' It involves disagreeable conduct that, in my opinion, diminishes the value of an important national asset," and that Johnson was punished only for the means by which he expressed his opinion, not the opinion itself.


The opinions on either side were expressed by both conservative and liberal justices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

[Perianne]

Green Arrow

Don't kick me out of this debate. I only want to discuss the issue.

[Tahuyaman]

The flag represents the principles the nation was founded upon. If you destroy that, you are demonstrating that you have no respect for those principle.

if you believe the current government is not living up to those principles, one should be honoring that flag and demanding others demonstrate the same honor by abiding by those principles.

[Tahuyaman]

Actually, no you can’t. Protests by their very nature piss people off.

Not necessarily. Protests, when conducted rationally and with reason gain support.

[Tahuyaman]

I do sometimes wonder how you end up on the wrong side of important issues.


Who do you advocate rounding up and killing today?

[The Xl]

An obvious disregard for the first Amendment, but none of these fucks care about the Constitution anyway

[Mister D]

Not sure how I feel. I sometimes think we cherish freedom for its own sake.

[MisterVeritis]

Who do you advocate rounding up and killing today?
You have already used that deflection. You cannot improve your score by repeating it.

[resister]

If I see a burning flag, as a good citizen, I will dump water on it, city ordinances and what not.

[Tahuyaman]

You have already used that deflection. You cannot improve your score by repeating it.


Why do you refuse to answer? Did you lose your courage?

[MisterVeritis]

Why do you refuse to answer? Did you lose your courage?
Your question is not relevant. You have already used your one deflection.

You are not a one-trick-pony are you?

[MisterVeritis]

If I see a burning flag, as a good citizen, I will dump water on it, city ordinances and what not.
Do you always carry water with you?

[Standing Wolf]

The flag represents the principles the nation was founded upon. If you destroy that, you are demonstrating that you have no respect for those principle.
Which is preferable? To abide, for liberty's sake, the destruction of a symbol, or to violate one of the principles we most treasure for the sake of preserving a symbol?

[resister]

Do you always carry water with you?
Generally I keep some in my saddle bags.

[nic34]

Burning a flag is not speech. It is a form of expression. A form of expression intended to anger others and provoke a violent reaction.

You are obviously the forum genius.

[MisterVeritis]

Not sure how I feel. I sometimes think we cherish freedom for its own sake.
I know I do.

[Tahuyaman]

Which is preferable? To abide, for liberty's sake, the destruction of a symbol, or to violate one of the principles we most treasure for the sake of preserving a symbol?

It's not a zero sum thing.

[Tahuyaman]

You are obviously the forum genius.


And you're not.

[Green Arrow]

Not necessarily. Protests, when conducted rationally and with reason gain support.

Some support, sure, but you’ll still piss someone off.

[Green Arrow]

And you're not.


You are obviously the forum genius.

Last warning. Discuss the topic, not each other.

[Mister D]

I know I do.

I don't but I am curious about the reasoning of those who insist our freedoms are derived from the political communities we're a part of. Here you have members (sometimes they're even Mexicans) of this community heaping scorn on it. It's a rather odd spectacle.

[MisterVeritis]

I don't but I am curious about the reasoning of those who insist our freedoms are derived from the political communities we're a part of. Here you have members (sometimes they're even Mexicans) of this community heaping scorn on it. It's a rather odd spectacle.
You don't pursue freedom for its own sake?

[Tahuyaman]

Some support, sure, but you’ll still piss someone off.. Malcontents will always be pissed off about something, but a rational protest based on substance often gains credible support. You're not going to get that support if you just try to outrage and anger people. Just the opposite. You usually turn off people who would be inclined to be sympathetic to yiur grievance.

[Mister D]

You don't pursue freedom for its own sake?
Of course not. Freedom for its own sake is a freedom without content.

[MisterVeritis]

Of course not. Freedom for its own sake is a freedom without content.
Is slavery an option you pursue?

[Ethereal]

It's kind of ironic for them to ban "desecration" of the US flag when their attempt at local democracy is likely to be squashed by a US court.

[Mister D]

Is slavery an option you pursue?
No. Why?

[Green Arrow]

Funnily enough, I had a job in Iberville Parish today.

[Ethereal]

As despicable as I may personally find it, that is precisely why it is the most offensive of speech that is the most deserving of protection. It is protected speech and this ordinance is unconstitutional.
Unconstitutional only in the most legalistic and empty sense of that word. As originally conceived, the first amendment only placed limitations on the US government, not state and local governments. The tenth amendment expressly states that "powers not delegated" are reserved to the people and the states. So why is this unconstitutional? Because of a "progressive" interpretation of the constitutional "union" that usurps local democracy and supplants it with an overbearing and ultimately authoritarian national Leviathan. So while I am against this local ordinance in the abstract, I must defend the higher principle of their democratic sovereignty.

[Bethere]

Last warning. Discuss the topic, not each other.

Or what?

[Adelaide]

Or what?

Thread banned by OP.

[MisterVeritis]

No. Why?
If you don't pursue freedom for its own sake ...

never mind.

[Mister D]

If you don't pursue freedom for its own sake ...

never mind.
I still have no idea why you asked and I thought you might not either. I see I was right. Yes, never mind.

[MisterVeritis]

I still have no idea why you asked and I thought you might not either. I see I was right. Yes, never mind.
The gulf between us is too big to bridge.

[Abby08]

It seems to me that you are the one that has a problem with this country. Approving speech or expression you disagree with is the essence of Americanism.

Because I see burning the flag an insult, I have a problem with with our country?

To burn something in effigy, is a symbol of hatred, I view the burning of the flag, in the same way.

It's my right, to feel that way is it not, as much as it is for a person to burn the flag?

[Mister D]

So, anyway, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning, guys. Rights are derived from the community, correct? Isn't it problematic when the very legitimacy of that community is questioned?

[Mister D]

The gulf between us is too big to bridge.

That's nice.

[Tahuyaman]

So, anyway, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning, guys. Rights are derived from the community, correct? Isn't it problematic when the very legitimacy of that community is questioned?


Rights aren't derived from the community.

[Standing Wolf]

It's not a zero sum thing.

It is a conscious choice that society has to make. We can either make laws criminalizing behavior that offends our sensibilities, or we can accept that the principles we cherish require that we will sometimes be offended by the way in which others exercise them.

[Standing Wolf]

Unconstitutional only in the most legalistic and empty sense of that word. As originally conceived, the first amendment only placed limitations on the US government, not state and local governments. The tenth amendment expressly states that "powers not delegated" are reserved to the people and the states. So why is this unconstitutional? Because of a "progressive" interpretation of the constitutional "union" that usurps local democracy and supplants it with an overbearing and ultimately authoritarian national Leviathan. So while I am against this local ordinance in the abstract, I must defend the higher principle of their democratic sovereignty.

The 14th Amendment states, in pertinent part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" - and courts have found that to include local government entities, as well.

[Mister D]

Rights aren't derived from the community.
If you believe that I wasn't asking you.

[Ethereal]

The 14th Amendment states, in pertinent part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" - and courts have found that to include local government entities, as well.
Yes, I'm aware of that. My point still stands. In fact, your dry, legalistic retort pretty much reinforces everything I just said about the supposed unconstitutionality of this local ordinance.

[Ethereal]

A central government with the power to protect the rights of every individual in America is a central government with the power to infringe those very same rights. Which use of that power do reasonable people think is more likely to occur? The latter or the former?

[Tahuyaman]

If you believe that I wasn't asking you.


This is an open forum. If you don't like it, tough.

[Mister D]

This is an open forum. If you don't like it, tough.
OK, old timer.

[Tahuyaman]

OK, old timer.


As long as you know your place.

[Ethereal]

As long as you know your place.
Several steps above you in intellect, it would appear.

[Tahuyaman]

Several steps above you in intellect, it would appear.

Am I supposed to care about what you think, leg humper?

[Agent Zero]

My opinion is, if you enjoy the freedoms and benefits of being a US citizen (or illegal alien) you should show some respect or go live elsewhere and see what life is like.

Maybe go to NK and burn their flag in the street and see how that works.
Make sure that the next time you vote you vote for a candidate who believes what you do.

[Ethereal]

Am I supposed to care about what you think, leg humper?
Whether you care or not isn't really relevant. Your lack of intelligence is apparent to all except you.

[Tahuyaman]

lol. You just can't help yourself. I'm not going to engage in your foolishness.

[Tahuyaman]

Make sure that the next time you vote you vote for a candidate who believes what you do.

Likewise. I don't know that there will be a Marxist running in 2020 for you to vote for..

[Ethereal]

lol. You just can't help yourself. I'm not going to engage in your foolishness.
You're easily the most foolish individual on the forum, so that comes off as a bit ironic.

[DGUtley]

Whether you care or not isn't really relevant. Your lack of intelligence is apparent to all except you.


lol. You just can't help yourself. I'm not going to engage in your foolishness.


OK, old timer.


@Mister D @Tahuyaman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1365) and @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) Thread banned by OP.

[Perianne]

@Mister D @Tahuyaman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1365) and @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) Thread banned by OP.
I am gonna get out of this thread. Too many dead bodies. :)

[Green Arrow]

I am gonna get out of this thread. Too many dead bodies. :)

You’re not in danger, you discuss the topic without insulting other posters.

[Cthulhu]

Via WAFB (http://www.wafb.com/story/36544830/iberville-parish-city-council-unanimously-votes-to-outlaw-desecration-of-flag):



I'm opposed to this law on the grounds that it is ridiculous and a violation of the First Amendment. I had thought this sort of thing was settled by Texas v. Johnson (1989). Thoughts, DGUtley?It is pointless legislation that should be struck down swiftly.

But what needs to happen is criminal penalties attached to those lawmakers - felonies specifically, for passing laws that are directly violating our God given rights.

Don't know if something violates the law? Get a panel of judges to ratify it first. Sort of like a pre-case law kind of thing.

I know this is murky water, because judges aren't supposed to write laws. But they seem to strike them down a lot. Maybe consulting them is wise when making them.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Cthulhu]

As despicable as I may personally find it, that is precisely why it is the most offensive of speech that is the most deserving of protection. It is protected speech and this ordinance is unconstitutional.This.

Exactly this. I don't like Nazis, or Democrats, Republicans either. But they should all be allowed to speak, so that the public might be able to discern insanity from coherent thought... And then vote libertarian...or green...or not at all if that suits their fancy.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Standing Wolf]

Yes, I'm aware of that. My point still stands. In fact, your dry, legalistic retort pretty much reinforces everything I just said about the supposed unconstitutionality of this local ordinance.

"Dry, legalistic retort"? Are you suggesting that the 14 Amendment to the Constitution should be ignored or forgotten in this instance? :huh:


[Note: Sorry, I didn't see that E had been TB'ed before responding to his post.]

[Standing Wolf]

A central government with the power to protect the rights of every individual in America is a central government with the power to infringe those very same rights. Which use of that power do reasonable people think is more likely to occur? The latter or the former?

Then you monitor the behavior and curb the abuses as they occur. The alternative is to have states and local governments which treat their citizens as less than full citizens at their whim.

[Standing Wolf]

But what needs to happen is criminal penalties attached to those lawmakers - felonies specifically, for passing laws that are directly violating our God given rights.

That strikes me as being a bad idea for a number of reasons. I think a better one would be to simply make it widely known and very clear that these "public servants" had knowingly and on the taxpayer's dime made a law that they knew had no chance of standing...and that they did so solely to pander and show off to a segment of their constituency. Then offer the voters an alternative at election time, with a pledge not to engage in that sort of populist nonsense.


Don't know if something violates the law? Get a panel of judges to ratify it first. Sort of like a pre-case law kind of thing.

I'd be opposed to having that be a formal or dictated process, as a violation of the separation of powers, but it is certainly a good idea for a legislator - particularly one who has little or no training in the law - to get some legal opinions on a measure before wasting the taxpayer's money in attempting to make it a law. Unfortunately, many simply don't care.