Does it matter? Neo-nazis are going to express anti-semitism like it or not, because they are anti-semites. Does it matter if they do so by burning a flag, rather than by carrying around swastikas?Originally Posted by Big D
Does it matter? Neo-nazis are going to express anti-semitism like it or not, because they are anti-semites. Does it matter if they do so by burning a flag, rather than by carrying around swastikas?
In the end the people learned to understand the meaning behind his actions and supported his beliefs, giving him another flag to eat.
"That IS a grand old flag" -Dr.Zoidberg
Any non-violent("peaceful") means or protest are constitutionally protected. This logically includes flag-burning.
The whole idea is absurd. It doesn't even deserve further consideration.
I guess my objection to flag-burning is because of personal disdain. I see it as a pointless gesture, designed to anger others rather than proving any kind of point. Just my opinion.Does it matter? Neo-nazis are going to express anti-semitism like it or not, because they are anti-semites. Does it matter if they do so by burning a flag, rather than by carrying around swastikas?
If flag burning is made illegal, then on the bright side, flag burning in protest will hold more meaning. People who burn flags after the passing of this amendment will be sacrificing their freedom (going to jail, I would imagine) to protest their loss of freedom. I've always thought that protesting without any personal risk has little value. People remember the illegal civil disobedience of MLK Jr, Rosa Parks and Ghandi, but noone remembers the names of the protesters that wave a sign and make a lot of noise on a street corner. This amendment will do more for the signifigance of flag burning than the politicians probably imagine. It'll make it actually mean something. As it stands now, flag burning is an impact-neutered publicity stunt.
Knock yourselves down.
I don't understand why. To me, it's just another form of protest. I don't like it because it really dosen't have much meaning to me, it's just pure folklore. As Garland says, if this got passed, then it would not be something empty, but defying the law. Then I would defend flag burning, because I could see the point perfectly.
I don't like flag burning, but I recognize the right to express an opinion. I don't like communism, but I recognize the right of communists to have and to speak their beliefs.I guess my objection to flag-burning is because of personal disdain. I see it as a pointless gesture, designed to anger others rather than proving any kind of point. Just my opinion.
A flag is private property, plain and simple. I don't understand people who would break their computers with a sledgehammer, but I recognize their right to own, to use, and to destroy their own property as they see fit.
I see your point. I suppose the situation's different when you're talking about the removal of an existing right. In America, with civil rights issues being what they are, the removal of the flag-burning right could be seen as indicitive of a wider trend. On those grounds, I'd oppose that kind of law change.I don't understand why. To me, it's just another form of protest. I don't like it because it really dosen't have much meaning to me, it's just pure folklore. As Garland says, if this got passed, then it would not be something empty, but defying the law. Then I would defend flag burning, because I could see the point perfectly.
Thats my view.
that's a good political cartoon.
Pretty accurate, too.
That's why it's good.
Aha. I was wondering why in the hell everyone liked the cartoon so much until I read the words on the lighter. I thought it was supporting banning the flag-burnings.
Posting Permissions
