Turns out she was right.....

64 comments

• mikeya02

  •

  9 years ago

  Oh, here's a link [view link]
• JamesSD

  •

  9 years ago

  The right to desecrate the flag for political reasons is well established. These guys sound like assholes, but even assholes get to speak their minds. Stealing another person's property is illegal, even if they are stepping on it.
• mikeya02

  •

  9 years ago

  ^^^yes, I keep hearing that. I'm not going to debate my point. It's pretty simple.
• crazyjoe

  •

  9 years ago

  Would stomping on them be freedom of speech?
• rentz2

  •

  9 years ago

  Yes, walking on a flag is protected by free speech. That's obvious. She stole someones property is what she did and should be charged for that crime.
• mikeya02

  •

  9 years ago

  ^^^duh. Desecrating a flag has only been protected by free speech since 1990. Supreme court ruling. Was that right? Do you like it?
• JamesSD

  •

  9 years ago

  Legally it was correct. This isn't Syria where you can be executed for drawing the prophet muhammad. We have free political speech. Do I like it? Eh. It's juvenile and ineffective. I'm more concerned by efforts by some college campuses to limit political speech by labeling it hate speech. I want assholes to be able to speak their minds so we all know who the assholes are.
• LeeH

  •

  9 years ago

  mikeya02: "some offensive behavior should not be covered by Free Speech" And who exactly gets to be the arbiter of what falls under "some"?
• mikeya02

  •

  9 years ago

  The Supreme Court obviously. My opinion doesn't count.
• Clubber

  •

  9 years ago

  Legally they can stomp the flag. Also, legally, they can get the fuck out of the US if they hate it so much! In the greatest (still, for now) county in the world and they fucking bitch about it? Calling them assholes is an insult to the assholes of the world.
• JohnSmith69

  •

  9 years ago

  When she grabbed the flag to stop them from stomping on it, and she refused to give it back, she was making her own political statement. That act was just as much her first amendment right as it was these ignorant idiots right to trample on said flag. There was no crime here by either side.
• skibum609

  •

  9 years ago

  Morally I side with her, but legally I cannot. If you buy a flag you can do what you wish with it. I do hate people who burn the flag and I won't donate a cent to any of the three universities from which I graduated since politically they support flag stompers. Two no longer send me requests to contribute after 20+ years of writing "get cancer" on the request and mailing it back certified mail.
• georgmicrodong

  •

  9 years ago

  @JS69: No. Stealing someone else's property is not a political statement, nor is it an example of free speech. The flag was the property of the protestors, to do with as they pleased. She had no right or authority to deprive them of *their* rights. I sympathize with her attitude, but she crossed the line, plain and simple. There is nothing that anyone can do to the U.S. Flag that will harm that for which it stands. Nothing, not trampling, not burning, not spitting, nothing. On the other hand, criminalizing the trampling, burning and spitting destroys everything for which it stands. I'm with JamesSD on his last point, let them squawk, it makes it easier to identify the people I'll let die if I ever see them drowning.
• bvino

  •

  9 years ago

  I hope those with attitudes about rights do not get offended by this forum.
• 4got2wipe

  •

  9 years ago

  Rechthaberei my friend, burning down a pizza joint is protected speech? I must have missed that brilliant decision! ;)
• motorhead

  •

  9 years ago

  The right to desecrate the flag is hardly a slam dunk. Before Texas v. Johnson, 48 of the 50 states had laws against it. The Court's decision was only 5-4 The subsequent Flag Protection Act was also only struck down by a 5-4 vote And the last attempt by Congress to consider a Constitutional Ammendment only was defeated by one vote. ONE VOTE. Like I say, hardly a slam dunk.
• georgmicrodong

  •

  9 years ago

  @Motorhead: Congess' action on Constitutional Amendments is only the first step, and the smallest. I cannot believe some of the posters here value liberty so little that they'd willingly support a position that allows the government to tell you what you can and cannot criticize.
• motorhead

  •

  9 years ago

  George Interesting. So what's worse. You're essentially telling is we can't hold those opinions.
• motorhead

  •

  9 years ago

  And yes I realize Congress' action is just the first step. And if I remember my high school Civics, 3/4 of the states would have to ratify the Ammendment. That's why I said 48 out 50 already had a law so I believe it would pass the states easily
• georgmicrodong

  •

  9 years ago

  Not at all. You can hold and express any opinion you want, including the ones voiced here. That's not the thing with which I have a problem. It's when you try to *force* others to hold your opinion, or to act as if they do, i.e. prevent them from expressing *their* opinions, that you cross the line. And advocating that the government pass a law to prevent that expression counts as "force".
• rockstar666

  •

  9 years ago

  Freedom is a very difficult concept for a lot of people. The GOP gets it wrong all the time when they try and limit speech, whether it's about climate change or burning flags. It doesn't only mean freedom to agree with you, it also means freedom to disagree. If you can't stomach political speech you disagree with, move to N. Korea where it's easy: you either agree with the government or you're jailed or killed. I have no desire to burn our flag, but I will fight for the right to do it.
• rockstar666

  •

  9 years ago

  Timothy McVie blew up a building killing over 100 men, women and children in the name of political speech. Again, the concept of free speech is quite confusing to too many people. Perhaps they should teach the concept in schools. Every student should have to burn an American flag so they understand what freedom really means.
• georgmicrodong

  •

  9 years ago

  @rockstarr, I don't believe that you're expressing the opinion that McVeigh was exercising protected speech, but just in case you were, no he wasn't. Violating the rights of others isn't protected, regardless of what Republicans or Democrats think. And for the record, Democrats aren't any better about respecting free speech than Republicans.
• rockstar666

  •

  9 years ago

  I was saying that HE thought killing was a form of political protest/speech. I suppose it is if you're an anarchist, but it cannot be tolerated in an orderly society. He was just a mass murderer, not an honest man looking to express free speech like the flag burners are.
• saer

  •

  9 years ago

  This is a generalization, I admit, but I tend to think those that are willing to limit the speech of others (political or otherwise) or call blatant theft "political speech" simply because it's a national symbol are more in love with the nation itself, rather than the ideas behind it. That's not patriotism - it's nationalism - very popular with fascists.
• Josh43

  •

  9 years ago

  @Ski: "Two no longer send me requests to contribute after 20+ years of writing "get cancer" on the request and mailing it back certified mail." --------------------------- Sounds like a nutty form of protest from someone trying to use shock-value to get some attention -- just like flag-desecration. Hope you used the USPS for the certified mail, though.
• warhawks

  •

  9 years ago

  I'd find out what country these people ACTUALLY like or are from. Then I'd go buy a bunch of THAT countries flags and burn them and stomp on them in front of the people burning the US flag. I'd be "exercising" my freedom of speech too.. Right in front of them.
• Clubber

  •

  9 years ago

  GMD, "The flag was the property of the protestors...". And how do you know that? 10 to 1 they stole it!
• Clubber

  •

  9 years ago

  motor, Last time I checked with obama, we were up to 60 states.
• JamesSD

  •

  9 years ago

  Wow, how much dust was on that Obama joke? It's 2015. It's all about hillary bashing.
• jester214

  •

  9 years ago

  "There is nothing that anyone can do to the U.S. Flag that will harm that for which it stands. Nothing, not trampling, not burning, not spitting, nothing." Very well put. Morons like these are, in a sense, voicing their (idiotic) opinions by desecrating the very thing that allows them to voice those opinions. If there's a weaker form of protest I'm not sure what it is.
• JohnSmith69

  •

  9 years ago

  I want to reply but I'm tooooo high. Suddenly this issue doesn't seem nearly as important anymore
• Clubber

  •

  9 years ago

  JSD, "Wow, how much dust was on that Obama joke?" Wasn't a joke. I believe that is just how idiotic the guy is. A bigger buffoon than biden!
• mikeya02

  •

  9 years ago

  ^^^ If Harry Reid spoke more, he would be the biggest buffoon
• Josh43

  •

  9 years ago

  Mikeya, you know that Harry Reid is retiring, right? Reid will most likely be replaced by Chuck Schumer.
• Clubber

  •

  9 years ago

  mikey, reid speaks only two words, "Yes" to libs and "NO" to the right.
• georgmicrodong

  •

  9 years ago

  @Clubber: The same way I know that you didn't haven't killed someone: there's no evidence that you did. Nice straw man, though.
• Clubber

  •

  9 years ago

  gmd, And no evidence they paid for it, but a preponderance of "evidence" that it would have been stolen. :)
• LeeH

  •

  9 years ago

  mikeya02: The Supreme Court [gets to be the arbiter of what falls under "some"] I remember when I was naive enough to trust the judgment of nine people whose job placement (and longevity) I had no control over. Ah, good times. Good times.
• mikeya02

  •

  9 years ago

  ^^^ I stated a fact. I don't believe the Supreme and districts courts should be against popular American will. But they are.
• georgmicrodong

  •

  9 years ago

  What is the evidence they stole it?
• LeeH

  •

  9 years ago

  So, mikeya02, your solution is to give these people even more power/responsibility and then -- knowing/admitting that they go against the people's will, hope they properly define what "some" is? Does your two-year-old clean your guns?
• JohnSmith69

  •

  9 years ago

  Sounds like she has some more supporters [view link]
• JohnSmith69

  •

  9 years ago

  Moreover evidence of our patriotic youth [view link]
• Clubber

  •

  9 years ago

  gmd, You might need an eye exam. Also... [view link] Doesn't seem he's the type to go purchase a flag to stomp on it.
• georgmicrodong

  •

  9 years ago

  That's not evidence the flag was stolen. It's evidence he brought a gun on campus, but *nothing* else. Show me evidence that the flag was stolen.
• motorhead

  •

  9 years ago

  For all those supporting the rights of the guy that desecrated the flag, read what the president of Valdosta State said. He's got it right --- "The minute it becomes threatening those first amendment rights disappear," VSU President William McKinney said Tuesday. "None of us should threaten each other when it comes to our ideas"
• georgmicrodong

  •

  9 years ago

  When did he threaten? Did he pull a Fun on anyone? How are the backpack and gun "linked to" him? Why didn't they just come out and say they were his?
• motorhead

  •

  9 years ago

  Illegally bringing a gun onto the VSU campus could be considered as a threat. In a press release from VSU, evidence was found linking the backpack to Eric Sheppard [view link]
• motorhead

  •

  9 years ago

  The police used the words "unmistakable evidence"
• mikeya02

  •

  9 years ago

  Leeh, before 1990 almost every state had bans on flag desecration. Then the Supreme Court decided for the whole nation it can't be banned. I can't believe the entire country was anti american and anti freedom until the magical year of 1990.
• 4got2wipe

  •

  9 years ago

  I hate to say it mikea02 but there has long been an lot of people in America that are anti-freedom! :( I'm not going to defend the d-bag of a kid. But I'm a firm believer that you should obey existing gun laws. But I don't see why having a legal firearm anywhere (except on private property where the property owners say you can't carry) should be a felony. He's at a state university, not private property. Like I said, I have doubt in my mind that he's a d-bag, but freedom is letting the d-bags have their say. And own guns (as long as they're legal). Given the current laws he shouldn't have brought the gun on campus and at this point the kid should turn himself in. But I don't think what he did should be illegal. And everybody else should have the right to tell him he's a d-bag. That's freedom and it's brilliant!
• georgmicrodong

  •

  9 years ago

  If he brought a gun on campus, that's illegal. It does *not* constitute evidence that he stole the flag. There is no evidence the flag was his because none is needed. Presumption of innocence, remember?
• rickdugan

  •

  9 years ago

  Once you allow the government to prosecute ignorant dickheads who burn a flag to make a political statement, you open the door for the government to outlaw other statements or expressions of dissent which it deems to be unpatriotic. This was precisely what the freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment was designed to prevent. As much as I hope that the protesters all get their genital sheared off in some horrible accident so that they don't breed and add more fucktards to the general population, I will also vigorously defend their right to be ignorant dickheads. It is about keeping our freedoms. Each time you give one away, however good the reason seems at the time, you never get it back.
• rickdugan

  •

  9 years ago

  Once you allow the government to prosecute ignorant dickheads who burn a flag to make a political statement, you open the door for the government to outlaw other statements or expressions of dissent which it deems to be unpatriotic. This was precisely what the freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment was designed to prevent. As much as I hope that the protesters all get their genital sheared off in some horrible accident so that they don't breed and add more fucktards to the general population, I will also vigorously defend their right to be ignorant dickheads. It is about keeping our freedoms. Each time you give one away, however good the reason seems at the time, you never get it back.
• motorhead

  •

  9 years ago

  Rick, To paraphrase Justice Rehnquist in his dissenting opinion, these acts are meant to antagonize not to express a political opinion. I think this is especially true in this VSU incident. The thugs couldn't even articulate a coherent statement of what they were protesting.
• Clubber

  •

  9 years ago

  gmd, You're taking this way to far. If you read my original statement I typed "evidence". Notice the quote marks! "Be careful not to use quotation marks in an attempt to emphasize a word (the kind of thing you see in grocery store windows—Big "Sale" Today!). Underline or italicize that word instead. (The quotation marks will suggest to some people that you are using that word in a special or peculiar way and that you really mean something else—or that your sale is entirely bogus.)" I was using them in a "special" way. The "evidence" is they are thugs. End of story.
• 4got2wipe

  •

  9 years ago

  I'm sad to see that I'm agreeing with rickdugan, given that he's generally a d-bag! Alas, he is right on this one! :( Must be the broken clock is right twice a day phenomenon! Brilliant phenomenon/non-brilliant guy!
• motorhead

  •

  9 years ago

  The Supreme Court is clear on this. "the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to employ every conceivable method of communication at all times and in all places." I'll cite you the 1984 case if you want to read it
• 4got2wipe

  •

  9 years ago

  On a less joking note, motorhead, would you defend the right of a cartoonist to draw Mohammed? That antagonizes Muslims worldwide! Way more than flag burning offends most Americans! But it can also be a political statement that Muslims are doing shitty stuff and that should be protected speech! How about Larry Flynt printing a parody ad purporting to be Jerry Falwell talking about fucking his mother? Flynt was being a d-bag to Falwell, but given that Falwell was king d-bag he deserved it! It was also protected speech and it was a political statement that Falwell's moral majority was full of shit! So why shouldn't somebody who believes that America is doing shitty things be able to burn the flag?
• motorhead

  •

  9 years ago

  I guess I'm old-fashioned in my belief of for what the flag stands for. The flag does not represent any opinion or viewpoint of either political party. It's a symbol of our country. I have no problem with anyone saying whatever they want about the Bush family, Barack Obama, or Jerry Falwell. That's freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. I have a hard time believing that allowing the flag to be burned or trampled upon was what James Madison and George Mason had in mind when they framed the Bill of Rights.
• mikeya02

  •

  9 years ago

  This is what I've got to say to the Supreme Court lovers on this issue...... [view link]
• saer

  •

  9 years ago

  It doesn't matter fuckall what the authors of the Bill of Rights thought when they wrote it - what matters is what it says. I tend to favor a strict interpretation - we get freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press, to own guns, etc. In my opinion, making exceptions to these freedoms is misguided and displays a rather egregious lack of familiarity with world political history.
• JamesSD

  •

  9 years ago

  I think the framers of the bill of rights would be horrified it applies to people beyond white male property owners. Except maybe Franklin. That dude was a pimp. Originalism is useless. Although Anton Scalia has the bones of James Madison in his basement and uses them to divine the will of men who have been dead for hundreds of years, it's a rather backwards way to approach the Constitution.